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

The poultryfication of Jake Virtanen

Rate this topic


Jake “the Duck” Virtanen?  

91 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Provost said:

Sure we can say he was a bad pick... he didn't work out.  We have many years of history to show us this.  

Can you make an argument for why Benning ignored the overall consensus of Nylander as BPA in that spot?  I guess you can, but it doesn't stop it from being a bad pick.

You can't "forgive" decisions that turn out badly, but give credit for decisions that turn out well.  That is just inventing things to support a preconceived opinion.  Virtanen and Juolevi were bad picks (at least with any evidence we have up until now).  Petterson was a great pick (at least with any evidence we have up until now).

You're not reading anything, so I'll make it bite sized. This has already been said a number of tmes.

 

You've used the excuse that Virtanen wouldn't have been ranked # 6 overall" excuse, especially when taking into account European skaters.

 

I've given you an example of how you've conflated this to mean that European skaters are equal to NA skaters, when this is a logical fallacy.  I thought you were a math person. When making comparisons, they have to be equal, or close to equal, otherwise they make no sense.

 

Example: I want to buy a minivan, but it costs 30,000. Oh look, a Prius sells for 22,000. "That looks like a better deal".  <--- Is it a better deal? How will we know? On what basis are we comparing a Prius to a Minivan?

 

Now you've gone back to the "Juolevi is a bad pick" statement, except TSN rates him number 6. Craig Button specifically says this.

 

https://www.tsn.ca/6-olli-juolevi-d-1.466965

 

So which is it, Provost? Are you shifting the goal posts again or not? :lol:

 

You are so bad at reasoning skills. Holy.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see Jake under a new coach. However, that's not gunna happen this year.

 

It's a shame because we shot his value so low and I cant see him in a Canuck uniform next year.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

Oh my goodness,

Jake needs a contract and money for motiviation.... That says it all.

 

No intrinsic motiviation from Jake

No passion for the game from Jake

 

Jim didn't do his due diligence on Jake before drafting him - another glaring mistake from Jim. What's the purpose of having a conversation between the prospect and the Canucks staff at the combine ahead of the draft? Right, to get a grasp of the personality of a player, especially what's the motivation of the player. Does he love the game.

 

Funny that some Jake supporters have been defending him for several years.

 

 

 

2.55 is not a bad signing, period. If you look at the comparisons, Virtanen's signing was no more generous or cheaper than everyone else with his production. There is a list out there, but if you're gonna slag a player, I want to see what basis you're looking at.

 

We've already seen @Provost try to "weasel" his way with data by misreading it. Truly embarrassing. It's hilarious that he accuses me of doing it, but he doesn't realize that he's the one doing it. :picard:

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MNaslund?? said:

Shouldn’t even be having this discussion because he shouldn’t of even signed him.  Great idea to give a guy a raise that’s a healthy scratch 60% of the time, great general managing 

They didn't give the raise to a guy that is scratched 60% of the time.

They "gave" the raise to a player that played all the games last year, scoring 18 goals, and  6 game winners with 13:05 ice time avg.

 

I you are going to crap on a player at least use facts to do it,

 

 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gurn said:

They didn't give the raise to a guy that is scratched 60% of the time.

They "gave" the raise to a player that played all the games last year, scoring 18 goals, and  6 game winners with 13:05 ice time avg.

 

I you are going to crap on a player at least use facts to do it,

 

 

I really feel like we have a bunch of sociopaths on this forum. There's so many people that would rather twist data or make crap up to fit their own version of the events, rather than looking at the other evidence that might challenge their position.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, gurn said:

They didn't give the raise to a guy that is scratched 60% of the time.

They "gave" the raise to a player that played all the games last year, scoring 18 goals, and  6 game winners with 13:05 ice time avg.

 

I you are going to crap on a player at least use facts to do it,

 

 

He was 9th for ice time on the team lol and then he was scratched and then it turned to 11th on the team for ice time at 11:16 minutes per game. 
big deal are the Canucks trying to trade him right now? Yes

so what’s you point? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

You're not reading anything, so I'll make it bite sized. This has already been said a number of tmes.

 

You've used the excuse that Virtanen wouldn't have been ranked # 6 overall" excuse, especially when taking into account European skaters.

I've given you an example of how you've conflated this to mean that European skaters are equal to NA skaters, when this is a logical fallacy.  I thought you were a math person. When making comparisons, they have to be equal, or close to equal, otherwise they make no sense.

 

Example: I want to buy a minivan, but it costs 30,000. Oh look, a Prius sells for 22,000. "That looks like a better deal".  <--- Is it a better deal? How will we know? On what basis are we comparing a Prius to a Minivan?

I can’t even follow that tortured logic...


You are right in your own words... when making comparisons they have to be close to, or equal, otherwise they make no sense.  (You forgot that they can be different as long as they are representative of each other.. but I will let that error slide).

 

A list of just North American Skaters is not close to, equal to, or representative of combined draft rankings.  It is just not, by literal definition.

 

You are finally starting to get why you are wrong... it took a while.

 

I am super proud of you for figuring it out and apologize for being a poor teacher.  Knowing something and being able to impart it to new learners are different skills, apparently I don’t have the latter.  The important thing is, with a good night’s sleep under your belt, you got there anyways and now face a new day armed with more knowledge than you had yesterday.

 

A Prius (list of just North American skaters) is absolutely not the same as a Minivan (a combined draft ranking including all skaters).  One seats a lot more people.  Jake should not look like a better deal because of a list that excludes all Europeans...

 

Also it would probably be better for you to find another analogy... a list of the top North American vehicle brands, probably doesn’t lead you to the same decision as a list that includes other foreign brands like Toyota, Honda, BMW, etc.  Don’t get stuck with a Ford when you can have a Ferrari!!

 

You are welcome... 

Edited by Provost
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MNaslund?? said:

He was 9th for ice time on the team lol and then he was scratched and then it turned to 11th on the team for ice time at 11:16 minutes per game. 
big deal are the Canucks trying to trade him right now? Yes

so what’s you point? 

The point is you were  spouting  falsehoods.

If Jake is so bad why do you have to make crap up to try to make your point?

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Provost said:

I can’t even follow that tortured logic...


You are right in your own words... when making comparisons they have to be close to, or equal, otherwise they make no sense.  (You forgot that they can be different as long as they are representative of each other.. but I will let that error slide).

 

A list of just North American Skaters is not close to, equal to, or representative of combined draft rankings.  It is just not, by literal definition.

 

You are finally starting to get why you are wrong... it took a while.

 

A Prius (list of just North American skaters) is absolutely not the same as a Minivan (a combined draft ranking including all skaters).  One seats a lot more people.  Jake should not look like a better deal because of a list that excludes all Europeans...

 

You are welcome... 

No, this is where you failed in your logic, lol. You're unable to comprehend basic logic, hence you think it's tortured logic. It's really not that difficult.

 

A minivan that is rated # 1 by European markets doesn't necessarily mean he is valued at the same level as a Prius in a North American market. There might not be anything wrong with that minivan, but that doesn't matter.

 

Your talk about Matthews, Laine, Pulj was trying to suggest that these players were rated better than Juolevi, but you jumped to the conclusions without explaining how you arrived there. In fact, I should remind you that your opinion should have facts.

 

Your logic was that Virtanen should have been rated lower with the inclusion of European skaters. Yet this is where you make the comparison fallacy. Without context, we cannot make a proper comparison without the background ddata

 

You also did not address any of my criticisms about how you compared players, as usual. No argument from you means you'll be repeating your same points. For example, why did Klim Kostin rated number 1 for EU skaters get picked 31st, while Pettersson got picked 5th? Yet wasn't even rated on the ISS.

 

How much times are you going to insist on being right when others have told you that you're wrong? I'm honestly curious as to what you provide to society.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

 

Your logic was that Virtanen should have been rated lower with the inclusion of European skaters. Yet this is where you make the comparison fallacy. Without context, we cannot make a proper comparison without the background data.

Sorry for assuming you had figured it out earlier, my bad.

 

You keep dancing around it and “almost” getting it though.

 

My logic was not that Virtanen would have been rated lower if you included Europeans at all.  My statement was that YOU can’t use a prospect list excluding Europeans to COMPARE with actual combined draft lists like you did.  You can’t make that comparison without THE BACKGROUND DATA.  You have no idea where Jake would have been drafted on an imaginary combined list... neither do I, because it doesn’t exist and your entire premise has been that it does exist and that it proves me wrong 

.  Show that list, I have asked you repeatedly.... cite it from somewhere.
 

You are the one claiming that because he is 6th out of just NA skaters, it is evidence that I am wrong about him not being rated that high in the (combined) draft.
 

So you can’t use an imaginary list as evidence, which is your entire premise.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Provost said:

Sorry for assuming you had figured it out earlier, my bad.

 

You keep dancing around it and “almost” getting it though.

 

My logic was not that Virtanen would have been rated lower if you included Europeans at all.  My statement was that YOU can’t use a prospect list excluding Europeans to COMPARE with actual combined draft lists like you did.  You can’t make that comparison without THE BACKGROUND DATA.  You have no idea where Jake would have been drafted on an imaginary combined list... neither do I, because it doesn’t exist and your entire premise has been that it does exist and that it proves me wrong 

.  Show that list, I have asked you repeatedly.... cite it from somewhere.
 

You are the one claiming that because he is 6th out of just NA skaters, it is evidence that I am wrong about him not being rated that high in the (combined) draft.
 

So you can’t use an imaginary list as evidence, which is your entire premise.  

https://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/scouting-report-top-10-prospect-jake-virtanen-might-be-viable-option-if-oilers-trade-down

 

Bob McKenzie had him 8th overall. The difference between 6th and 8th is not insignificant, but close enough that the players are reasonably comparable. COMPARABLE.

 

That means your statement that none of the scouts had him pegged at 6 is MISLEADING. It's not like Jake was supposed to be this late first round pick that was picked far earlier than expected. Based on team needs, a player MAY be picked higher than where they were 'supposed' to be. We saw this with Barrett Hayton. He was pretty much an off the board pick. Another example was Michael Grabner.


What don't you understand about this? There is no imaginary list. Everything I've cited has a source. Meanwhile, you have yet to provide a source to back up your claims.


Sorry, but I'm not sorry for thinking you would understand basic concepts of logic, even when given an explanation. Get your ego out of your ass.

 

Also, you were the one who said that 1/6th of a list is considered half a draft list. LOL. What a joke.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Honestly, I read the thread title and thought this was a topic about how chicken Jake is. 

Then the title would have been “The Greenification of Jake Virtanen”.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

Bob McKenzie had him 8th overall. The difference between 6th and 8th is not insignificant

 

That means your statement that none of the scouts had him pegged at 6 is MISLEADING


So wait, it is hard to keep up with your moving goalposts... so now I am being misleading because 8 is really basically the same as 6... even though (in your words) the difference between 6 and 8 is not insignificant?

 

If you give me $8 thousand dollars, I will give you $6 thousand back and we are square because, even though the difference between them is not insignificant, they are also the same because 6 and 8 are pretty comparable ? Sounds good to me.

 

Yeeesh... keep stretching your logic even more.

 

6 is pretty much 8... ok.  I absolutely accept that if in your world those mean the same thing then sure, he was ranked 6-8th and should have been picked as high as 6-8 according to Bob Mackenzie. 
You though, in turn, have to accept that in my world  6 is really the same as 4... and 4 is really pretty much the same as 3.. and that since those things are true, Benning should have explained that to everyone and selected Leon Draisaitl before the other teams above us ha da chance to pick.  He is a terrible GM for not having been able to explain that properly to his fellow GMs.

 

It is really a genius way to look at the world that we can totally take advantage of as a team!

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

https://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/scouting-report-top-10-prospect-jake-virtanen-might-be-viable-option-if-oilers-trade-down

 

Bob McKenzie had him 8th overall. The difference between 6th and 8th is not insignificant, but close enough that the players are reasonably comparable. COMPARABLE.

 

That means your statement that none of the scouts had him pegged at 6 is MISLEADING. It's not like Jake was supposed to be this late first round pick that was picked far earlier than expected. Based on team needs, a player MAY be picked higher than where they were 'supposed' to be. We saw this with Barrett Hayton. He was pretty much an off the board pick. Another example was Michael Grabner.


What don't you understand about this? There is no imaginary list. Everything I've cited has a source. Meanwhile, you have yet to provide a source to back up your claims.


Sorry, but I'm not sorry for thinking you would understand basic concepts of logic, even when given an explanation. Get your ego out of your ass.

 

Also, you were the one who said that 1/6th of a list is considered half a draft list. LOL. What a joke.

 

Not to step into your mini feud, but I've been torturing myself reading through the last half of this thread and the tit for tat between you and Provost.  A heck of a lot of words of a very simple argument....Is being rated #6 for NA skaters, different than being rated #6 of available talent from the whole planet overall, (including goalies)?   Seems you took a heck of a long time to finally agree to that, kind of.

 

That whole argument is a red herring to what JB did this off season with him. Re-signed to a two year back loaded contract.  Screwing up his ability to even trade him (looks like the Anaheim deal is failing because of that) Seems a little desperate just to fill out his roster after he "ran out of time" with the players he should have been concentrating on. I'd rather have kept Stecher @2.3, who was way more important to our success than Jake, our second best +/-  D on the team last season. No need for Hamonic. Use that money to get a decent third liner FA.

 

The fact is Jake was not taken by any team above us in the draft, and that we have no idea how high Jake would have gone if we'd passed on him.  Are you sure that the Hurricanes, Leafs, and Jets would have picked Virtanen?  A player that The Red Line Report praised for his skating, but also said: 

 

"Prototypical pro power winger with the draft's best combination of size, speed, shot, and raw power. A natural sniper whose shot is an absolute laser beam, and he loves to fire it from any anywhere. An explosive straight ahead skater who just torches defenders and plays with swagger. Absolutely loves the physical side of the game - gives and takes big hits and comes back even harder. Tough as nails and a devastating fighter. Impossible to move him off the puck from the circles in. He doesn't have great vision or hockey sense - if he did, we'd be talking about the clear-cut best player in the draft. Holds onto the puck longer than he should. Great at penetrating the middle in offensive zone, uses size to gain space in the slot and knock players off the puck. A physically imposing open ice hitter – always has opponents looking over their shoulders."

 

Benning overlooked "vision and hockey sense" as being important, and went with the popular local boy who was going to somehow overcome that lack of hockey sense with his grit and speed. Because he "Absolutely loves the physical side of the game" and " Impossible to move him off the puck from the circles in"  :lol:

 

Is it that hard to admit JB made a mistake in 2014?  I can. Just like we don't know how high Jake would have been picked if not for us, Jim didn't know he'd be such a bust either. Fair enough. But he made the pick. He is the one with way more informed advice at his beckon call than we do on a message board. That's one thing that is hilarious on here, giving Jim a bottomless mulligan as if he had just as many resources as any member of CDC. :wacko:

 

The buck stops with him, sorry, that's the responsibility he is paid handsomely for. He was the one that chose not to listen to those who were more skeptical like Craig Button, and instead agreed with Bob McKenzie, who I'm using because he was the highest, @ 8, you could find.  BTW someone who also raved about Cody Hodgson as being maybe the biggest steal in his years draft. 

.

.

Edited by kilgore
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

Not to step into your mini feud, but I've been torturing myself reading through the last half of this thread and the tit for tat between you and Provost.  A heck of a lot of words of a very simple argument....Is being rated #6 for NA skaters, different than being rated #6 of available talent from the whole planet overall, (including goalies)?   Seems you took a heck of a long time to finally agree to that, kind of.

 

That whole argument is a red herring to what JB did this off season with him. Re-signed to a two year back loaded contract.  Screwing up his ability to even trade him (looks like the Anaheim deal is failing because of that) Seems a little desperate just to fill out his roster after he "ran out of time" with the players he should have been concentrating on. I'd rather have kept Stecher @2.3, who was way more important to our success than Jake, our second best +/-  D on the team last season. 

 

Is it that hard to admit JB made a mistake in 2014?  I can. Just like we don't know how high Jake would have been picked if not for us, Jim didn't know he'd be such a bust either. Fair enough. But he made the pick. He is the one with way more informed advice at his beckon call than we do on a message board. That's one thing that is hilarious on here, giving Jim a bottomless mulligan as if he had just as many resources as any member of CDC. :wacko:

 

The buck stops with him, sorry, that's the responsibility he is paid handsomely for. He was the one that chose not to listen to those who were more skeptical like Craig Button, and instead agreed with Bob McKenzie, who I'm using because he was the highest, @ 8, you could find.  BTW someone who also raved about Cody Hodgson as being maybe the biggest steal in his years draft. 

.

.

Sorry for the long winded replies...it was as painful to be part of as reading, I can assure you.

I agree with basically everything you said.  I was pounding the drum at the time that Stecher was the loss we shouldn't accept.  I can understand the decision to walk away from Tanev and Markstrom (if their asks for staying were close to what they got on the open market... which we can't be sure of, especially since Tanev outright said the team didn't bother negotiation with him, even days after free agency started).  Stecher on the other hand certainly signs with us for the same or less than what he got in Detroit, which was even less than the $2.3 you suggested.  If for some reason Benning thought Stecher wasn't wort qualifying at that $2.3 amount... at the VERY least say, "Hey, aside from our cap dilemma we love what you bring.  See what you can get on the market and give us a call and we will see if we can match it."  Anyone on this Board think Stecher doesn't sign with us instead of Detroit if a matching offer was out there?  Stecher was our best shot suppression D for the last several years and always outperformed his low contract... getting him even cheaper would have been a great value for what he brings.  Even if you only think he is a 3rd pairing D who can move up in the lineup in case of injury... that is still good value at that price tag.

The buck does stop with Benning.  I just don't understand giving him a pass on all the bad things while at the same time praising everything good he has done.  At least use the same metrics to praise as criticize.  He can do both bad and good things, it doesn't have to be that he is complete trash or a complete God.  Petterson great pick... Virtanen bad pick... 
Virtanen was taken 2-42 spots higher than the other lists had him at, 7 years later and I don't think a lot of those lists think they made a mistake and should have ranked him at #6.
Redrafts based performance have him as high as 22nd or falling out of the 1st round entirely.
https://www.nhl.com/news/revisiting-the-2014-nhl-draft-david-pastrnak-replaces-aaron-ekblad/c-307746004
https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/capitals/redrafting-2014-nhl-draft-jakub-vrana-top-10-pick
https://theathletic.com/1584416/2020/02/06/pronman-re-drafting-the-nhls-class-of-2014/

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I'm going to suggest that Dazzle and Provost agree to disagree and, if necessary, use ignore moving forward to stop the back/forth.

 

 

Done. I'm not going to personally engage with this poster again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I'm going to suggest that Dazzle and Provost agree to disagree and, if necessary, use ignore moving forward to stop the back/forth.

 

 

You never want to run afowl of Deb.

  • Haha 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...