The poultryfication of Jake Virtanen

[captainhorvat]

5 minutes ago, Quinn Huges said:

To be honest. I dont blame Anaheim here at all. 

Sadly I don’t either...

[alt kilgore]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sure, you have to overpay to bring guys like that to a rebuilding team. Thank god too, I couldn't take another year of guys like Skillle. 

Hate to disagree, but if you are including term as well, that is exactly what you DO NOT do to a rebuilding team.  JB did not have to pay 3 x 4, 3 x 4, and 4.3 x 5 for fourth liners. Eating up all the years of ELCs from your young stars by maxing out the cap on a rag tag crew of plugin-players through that duration.  Ideally, there are at least two windows for a rising team. the first when you have a stable of young stars on ECLs and bridge deals, so you (should) have money to add the final pieces like Toffoli, and keep more of your valued veterans who have played here awhile. JB has blown this window. The second will be when Benning or hopefully a new GM, can rid the team of the dead weight and cap penalties,  in a couple of years, and make better choices when finding the right pieces to compliment our core when they are in their prime. I shudder to think of JB being the one responsible to carry this out.

.

.

Edited March 3, 2021 by kilgore

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Hate to disagree, but if you are including term as well, that is exactly what you DO NOT do to a rebuilding team.  JB did not have to pay 3 x 4, 3 x 4, and 4.3 x 5 for fourth liners. Eating up all the years of ELCs from your young stars by maxing out the cap on a rag tag crew of plugin-players through that duration.  Ideally, there are at least two windows for a rising team. the first when you have a stable of young stars on ECLs and bridge deals, so you (should) have money to add the final pieces like Toffoli, and keep more of your valued veterans who have played here awhile. JB has blown this window. The second will be when Benning or hopefully a new GM, can rid the team of the dead weight and cap penalties,  in a couple of years, and make better choices when finding the right pieces to compliment our core when they are in their prime. I shudder to think of JB being the one responsible to carry this out.

.

.

please, disagree, its what this place is for.

 

I believe in the model where guys learn in a more competitive environment, so I like the Beagle signing in particular. No way do we take Vegas to 7 games last year without these signings, and to me that experience is invaluable.

 

I don't really care about ELC vs bridge for when the team hits its window, unless you can show me that's a big factor in winning the cup? 

 

Sutter wasn't signed to be a bottom 6 guy, the thought was he'd evolve into a 2C behind Henrik. But he has been great at the 3C job when he's been healthy. 

[alt kilgore]

39 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

please, disagree, its what this place is for.

 

I believe in the model where guys learn in a more competitive environment, so I like the Beagle signing in particular. No way do we take Vegas to 7 games last year without these signings, and to me that experience is invaluable.

 

I don't really care about ELC vs bridge for when the team hits its window, unless you can show me that's a big factor in winning the cup? 

 

Sutter wasn't signed to be a bottom 6 guy, the thought was he'd evolve into a 2C behind Henrik. But he has been great at the 3C job when he's been healthy. 

Its just that I usually agree with you McGill. And I understand what you are saying.  You do need to keep some competitiveness even while rebuilding.  And I do believe that definitely holds true for the goaltending position, its important to pay if you have to, for quality for that very reason. No problem with signing Miller when we did for instance.

 

But you also have to be smart about how much of the cap, and tying it up for how many years, and how many of those support roster spots are overpaid for what they bring.  Yeah hindsight is 20/20, but that latest round of FA shopping sprees, comes off the heels of JBs first round of FA sprees...LE, Gagner. and trading prospects and picks for players like Gudbranson.

 

I don't think JB has done a great job at that. I really question his ability to evaluate players. He's the one being paid the big bucks, and is supposed to be competent at that.  I agree that Sutter is okay, and I think he's been particularly good lately, great hustle.  But even you admit he was hired as a 2C but plays at the level of 3C.  Miller is an exception being a player that actually has played at or above what we expected, but lets not forget we did pay a good price for him.

 

Taking advantage of the ELC for your young stars to compete for the Cup is more difficult in the dance of having enough good support players still there, and making the right decisions on FAs.  But if you want one, Chicago is the example that comes to mind.  Won the Cup in 2010 taking advantage of a younger Keith, Toews, and Kane, just before all their big pay raises the next season kicked in.  They were able to sign Hossa, with that cap room, to help them over the hump to win the Cup that season.

 

It is more rare to win in that first window though. But it would have been fun to have been able to have a run during that one too with Petey, Quinn, and the Flow while he's flowing.  

 

 

 

[JM_]

9 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Its just that I usually agree with you McGill. And I understand what you are saying.  You do need to keep some competitiveness even while rebuilding.  And I do believe that definitely holds true for the goaltending position, its important to pay if you have to, for quality for that very reason. No problem with signing Miller when we did for instance.

 

But you also have to be smart about how much of the cap, and tying it up for how many years, and how many of those support roster spots are overpaid for what they bring.  Yeah hindsight is 20/20, but that latest round of FA shopping sprees, comes off the heels of JBs first round of FA sprees...LE, Gagner. and trading prospects and picks for players like Gudbranson.

 

I don't think JB has done a great job at that. I really question his ability to evaluate players. He's the one being paid the big bucks, and is supposed to be competent at that.  I agree that Sutter is okay, and I think he's been particularly good lately, great hustle.  But even you admit he was hired as a 2C but plays at the level of 3C.  Miller is an exception being a player that actually has played at or above what we expected, but lets not forget we did pay a good price for him.

 

Taking advantage of the ELC for your young stars to compete for the Cup is more difficult in the dance of having enough good support players still there, and making the right decisions on FAs.  But if you want one, Chicago is the example that comes to mind.  Won the Cup in 2010 taking advantage of a younger Keith, Toews, and Kane, just before all their big pay raises the next season kicked in.  They were able to sign Hossa, with that cap room, to help them over the hump to win the Cup that season.

 

It is more rare to win in that first window though. But it would have been fun to have been able to have a run during that one too with Petey, Quinn, and the Flow while he's flowing.  

 

 

 

thats all pretty logical. 

 

I do agree Jim hasn't been a terrific pro scout, its a pretty mixed bag, some great like Miller, but too many Gagner's and Sbisa's. 

 

JB's time here has been weird. We're still suffering, maybe for the 1st time in a really damaging way, from the Loui signing. That 6 mil would go a long way this year. Even just having that probably changes things a lot. But that was one of the 1st big things he did, and it made sense if you believed in the Sedin 2.0 rebuild. 

 

I know what you're saying about the ELC part, but McDavids came and went, as did others. I do see though a great chance here to work with Petey, Hughes and Brock's bridge deals with Juolevi, Podkolzin and maybe Lind being the ELC pieces that make the whole thing get competitive again. As long as you have some high quality ELCs, I think we'll be OK, as you want to lock in your elites for a long time anyway. 

[RU SERIOUS]

WOW !!!!!!!!!!  Lazy Jake showed up tonight for the first time this year (took 27 games - but what the heck)  and scored twice to defeat the Leafs.   He even made a pass (I saw it with my own eyes) to Pearson rather than shoot.  He now has three points on the season and can no longer be made fun of for having fewer points than three goalies in the League who have two points each.

 

Things are looking up for Lazy Jake - this might help a bit with JB's efforts to move him before trade deadline.

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by RU SERIOUS

[yes we can nucks]

Last night was Jake of a different feather. The one we always hoped for... relentless on the puck, driving the net, smart passing, and scoring! Has a new Jake hatched? Or will he go back to walking on egg shells?

[alt kilgore]

3 hours ago, yes we can nucks said:

Last night was Jake of a different feather. The one we always hoped for... relentless on the puck, driving the net, smart passing, and scoring! Has a new Jake hatched? Or will he go back to walking on egg shells?

That's the 5 million cap dollar question.

Its tempting every time we see a night like this with Jake to project this onto upcoming games. Like he's finally seen the light. Because, any rational hockey fan, which may be a rare thing, would surmise that why wouldn't a young talented athlete, who has the build and speed for the game of hockey, NOT want keep it going?  Who wouldn't give their first born to be able to suit up as a relied upon, respected, NHL player?.....oh, just me? ...But we just assume that Jake wants that. Or rather wants that enough to put out the effort he did last night, every darn game.

 

Its so painful to have to say........I still need to see Jake come out next game.....and the next game....and the next....do the things he did in last nights game. Not only that, but do them for 60 minutes. He needs to elevate his game to this same level for the rest of the season now for me to change my mind on him.  So since my mind has yet to be changed, I hope some other team GM notices, and is fooled like we have been, and gives us a second rounder, or some other more promising prospect. I'd jump at that.

 

But of course, my preference would be if Jake has just snapped out of it overnight. The spirits of Hockey's past came to visit him...Cyclone Taylor, Maurice Richard, and Gordy Howe, and in only one night, have transformed him into the star we always knew he could be. Gawd bless us fans, every one.

.

.

Edited March 5, 2021 by kilgore

[Gurn]

I'm not a fan of using capital letters to scream out a message but:

 

JAKE SURE LOOKS BETTER COMING DOWN THE LEFT WING THAN HIS NORMAL SPOT.

 

apologies for that.

[EdgarM]

I appears that the Coach has decided to work with one of his young players and try a new strategy rather then try the "unproductive" benching or demotion after a few periods on any one line. 

Jake was productive when he was playing with Petey and Miller last year but he was demoted to the 2nd line then the 3rd line and the 4th line and then benched in the playoffs. He was on the 2nd PP line as well before being taken off and I guess he has earned his way back on............ i guess.

Like OJ, apparently benched/demoted for no reason as Jake was producing at about a point per game during his short stint with Petey and Miller. 

I believe if Green just leaves him alone and keeps him on one line with the same line mates, he can gain confidence and produce. 

Jake still is a valuable player that is needed in the playoffs and is our "next best" considering it looks like Ferlund is pretty much done. 

I am curious to see how Green deals with this from here on out.

[RU SERIOUS]

14 hours ago, gurn said:

I'm not a fan of using capital letters to scream out a message but:

 

JAKE SURE LOOKS BETTER COMING DOWN THE LEFT WING THAN HIS NORMAL SPOT.

 

apologies for that.

...............anything would look better from Jake's usual spot - which is floating in mid ice waiting for a pass like a sea-gull !

[Provost]

14 hours ago, EdgarM said:

I appears that the Coach has decided to work with one of his young players and try a new strategy rather then try the "unproductive" benching or demotion after a few periods on any one line. 

Jake was productive when he was playing with Petey and Miller last year but he was demoted to the 2nd line then the 3rd line and the 4th line and then benched in the playoffs. He was on the 2nd PP line as well before being taken off and I guess he has earned his way back on............ i guess.

Like OJ, apparently benched/demoted for no reason as Jake was producing at about a point per game during his short stint with Petey and Miller. 

I believe if Green just leaves him alone and keeps him on one line with the same line mates, he can gain confidence and produce. 

Jake still is a valuable player that is needed in the playoffs and is our "next best" considering it looks like Ferlund is pretty much done. 

I am curious to see how Green deals with this from here on out.

I think this is a bit of revisionist history and creating the opposite “cause and effect” narrative to what actually seemed to have happened.  If you go back to the game logs and look deeper it tells a different story.

 

Jake started slow last season, then started producing well at the end of Nov/early Dec coinciding right when Roussel came back from injury and was put on his line.  That good stretch of production came primarily on a line with Roussell and Gaudette... not with Petey and Miller.  He barely produced any points with those two guys at all.

He was producing well in his 3rd line role so THEN earned more minutes and got more chances to play higher in the lineup and more 2nd unit PP time where he got a bunch of his production in that stretch.
His great play lasted 5-6 weeks, tailed off and he went back to not producing at all.  1 point in 10 games starting late Jan/early Feb.  That tail off actually coincided with him being moved to be tried on the Miller/Petterson line.  Jake had a couple of good games with them and then went into a deep slide that lasted the rest of the season all the way until now.  Boeser got hurt and Virtanen wasn’t producing in that spot.  Jake was dropped in the lineup and Toffoli was acquired to fill the injury hole.

 

People can have a hard on for Green, but he isn’t dropping guys down in the lineup that are helping him win.  Jake’s play determined his minutes, not the other way around.

 

We saw how he played in the playoffs... so there is zero evidence that Jake is “made for the playoffs”.  I was interested and hoping to see that.  The narrative/theory was that once the games got big, it would provide Jake the extra motivation to play at a higher level more consistently to match that intensity.  That didn’t happen, quite the reverse... when other players ratcheted up their play, he tailed off.  The game seemed too hard and intense for his level of compete.  Who knows if he learned from that and might be different in the future, but it isn’t at all reasonable to say he is our best bet after Ferland.

 

Evidence shows our best bet after Ferland were probably Horvat and Motte in terms of being able to have that extra compete level in the big games.  

Edited March 6, 2021 by Provost

[Dazzle]

12 hours ago, Provost said:

I think this is a bit of revisionist history and creating the opposite “cause and effect” narrative to what actually seemed to have happened.  If you go back to the game logs and look deeper it tells a different story.

 

Jake started slow last season, then started producing well at the end of Nov/early Dec coinciding right when Roussel came back from injury and was put on his line.  That good stretch of production came primarily on a line with Roussell and Gaudette... not with Petey and Miller.  He barely produced any points with those two guys at all.

He was producing well in his 3rd line role so THEN earned more minutes and got more chances to play higher in the lineup and more 2nd unit PP time where he got a bunch of his production in that stretch.
His great play lasted 5-6 weeks, tailed off and he went back to not producing at all.  1 point in 10 games starting late Jan/early Feb.  That tail off actually coincided with him being moved to be tried on the Miller/Petterson line.  Jake had a couple of good games with them and then went into a deep slide that lasted the rest of the season all the way until now.  Boeser got hurt and Virtanen wasn’t producing in that spot.  Jake was dropped in the lineup and Toffoli was acquired to fill the injury hole.

 

People can have a hard on for Green, but he isn’t dropping guys down in the lineup that are helping him win.  Jake’s play determined his minutes, not the other way around.

 

We saw how he played in the playoffs... so there is zero evidence that Jake is “made for the playoffs”.  I was interested and hoping to see that.  The narrative/theory was that once the games got big, it would provide Jake the extra motivation to play at a higher level more consistently to match that intensity.  That didn’t happen, quite the reverse... when other players ratcheted up their play, he tailed off.  The game seemed too hard and intense for his level of compete.  Who knows if he learned from that and might be different in the future, but it isn’t at all reasonable to say he is our best bet after Ferland.

 

Evidence shows our best bet after Ferland were probably Horvat and Motte in terms of being able to have that extra compete level in the big games.  

I'm gonna pull a page out of oldnews' book...

 

A lot of Jake's game is built around confidence, yet I don't think Green particularly rewarded Virtanen more time despite his production. Given how he had apparently turned the corner during the season. Looking at the minutes last year, https://www.espn.com/nhl/player/gamelog/_/id/3114734/year/2020/jake-virtanen,Green, on paper, is fairly consistent with the ice time. The exception seems to be in Oct and Jan, he was given over 180 minutes of ice time, for example.

A look at the TOI https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2020.html will show that Virtanen was not given any less time on the ice than others, on average. He was in the middle of the pack.

 

Yet, when grouping the Corsi numbers for even strength, Virtanen was hovering at 48.8, whereas his other usual linemates went below this. Gaudette and Sutter, for example, were 46.1 and 44 respectively.

 

Fenwick stat says Virtanen is 50.3, so in theory, he's really not that bad of a player. He's at least on par with the top 6 forwards (all of them are above 50). His TK/GV ratio is also marginally better than Pearson.

 

Yet Pearson has at least 3 minutes more than Virtanen.

 

On a cursory look on underlying stats, there isn't a whole lot of difference with Pearson and Virtanen, Pearson is no more impactful than Virtanen, not taking into account the points. I am really curious to see if Virt would produce like Pearson, if given the opportunities that Pearson has though.

 

In the playoffs, Pearson was given 6 minutes more of ice time than Virtanen. Pearson did produce in the playoffs. Virtanen, not so much. It's obvious that Green trusts Pearson more, yet the underlying stats don't seem to suggest that he is that much more better than Virtanen.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Dazzle

[Provost]

28 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 there isn't a whole lot of difference with Pearson and Virtanen, Pearson is no more impactful than Virtanen, not taking into account the points.

 

I think “not taking into account the points” really is a bit silly.  That is saying “except for actual results”... he is almost as effective.

 

A lot of the difference in their minutes was Pearson also playing time on the PK which Virtanen didn’t.

 

When comparing stats, you also have to be careful to compare like to like.  Don’t take total ice time and then relate it to just 5v5 advanced stats instead of all strengths as an example.

 

Natural Stat Trick is a good site for being able to better look at stats.

 

Virtanen has had plenty of time with top 6 linemates, and he doesn’t produce.  His best career production was the middle of last year when on a sheltered 3rd line against lesser competition.  If that is what he is, trying to shoehorn him into another role that he has never succeeded in doesn’t seem like a great plan.

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

I think “not taking into account the points” really is a bit silly.  That is saying “except for actual results”... he is almost as effective.

 

A lot of the difference in their minutes was Pearson also playing time on the PK which Virtanen didn’t.

 

When comparing stats, you also have to be careful to compare like to like.  Don’t take total ice time and then relate it to just 5v5 advanced stats instead of all strengths as an example.

 

Natural Stat Trick is a good site for being able to better look at stats.

 

Virtanen has had plenty of time with top 6 linemates, and he doesn’t produce.  His best career production was the middle of last year when on a sheltered 3rd line against lesser competition.  If that is what he is, trying to shoehorn him into another role that he has never succeeded in doesn’t seem like a great plan.

Underlying stats seem rather similar to Pearson, but as you correctly pointed out, Pearson plays on the PK. Virtanen doesn't. Perhaps the coach should put more faith in Virtanen. The GV/TK numbers don't particularly highlight Pearson as being any better than Virtanen. I don't remember about the defensive stat numbers though. I don't think Pearson was any better than Virt though. They didn't stand out.

 

What stats won't show is how "engaged' Virt is/isn't. I'm honestly glad that today, Green put him with Pearson. What I would like to see is some consistency from Virt, as well as consistency from Green.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Dazzle

[RU SERIOUS]

22 hours ago, Provost said:

I think this is a bit of revisionist history and creating the opposite “cause and effect” narrative to what actually seemed to have happened.  If you go back to the game logs and look deeper it tells a different story.

 

Jake started slow last season, then started producing well at the end of Nov/early Dec coinciding right when Roussel came back from injury and was put on his line.  That good stretch of production came primarily on a line with Roussell and Gaudette... not with Petey and Miller.  He barely produced any points with those two guys at all.

He was producing well in his 3rd line role so THEN earned more minutes and got more chances to play higher in the lineup and more 2nd unit PP time where he got a bunch of his production in that stretch.
His great play lasted 5-6 weeks, tailed off and he went back to not producing at all.  1 point in 10 games starting late Jan/early Feb.  That tail off actually coincided with him being moved to be tried on the Miller/Petterson line.  Jake had a couple of good games with them and then went into a deep slide that lasted the rest of the season all the way until now.  Boeser got hurt and Virtanen wasn’t producing in that spot.  Jake was dropped in the lineup and Toffoli was acquired to fill the injury hole.

 

People can have a hard on for Green, but he isn’t dropping guys down in the lineup that are helping him win.  Jake’s play determined his minutes, not the other way around.

 

We saw how he played in the playoffs... so there is zero evidence that Jake is “made for the playoffs”.  I was interested and hoping to see that.  The narrative/theory was that once the games got big, it would provide Jake the extra motivation to play at a higher level more consistently to match that intensity.  That didn’t happen, quite the reverse... when other players ratcheted up their play, he tailed off.  The game seemed too hard and intense for his level of compete.  Who knows if he learned from that and might be different in the future, but it isn’t at all reasonable to say he is our best bet after Ferland.

 

Evidence shows our best bet after Ferland were probably Horvat and Motte in terms of being able to have that extra compete level in the big games.  

Great Post !

[CptCanuck16]

On 2/27/2021 at 9:34 PM, rychicken said:

or maybe it would be because Jake finally got his head out of his posterior and decided to take the game seriously....

Motivating Jake certainly seems to be the sticking point. No one has figured out how. Benching or scratching him certainly doesn't seem to do the trick. Its as if he doesn't really want to play. When he is on the ice he doesn't like to get involved in the play much. He'd rather just do a few fly-bys and head to the bench. Maybe he is sick of the game? Or maybe he has PTSD from a past injury? No one knows but Jake and its on him to figure it out, or not.

 

I think his time in Vancouver is done and if he flourishes somewhere else I'll be happy for him (as long as it isn't in  CGY, lol) but I think more realistically he'll get traded around every season or two and eventually get bounced out of the leauge. 

[Hairy Kneel]

On 3/5/2021 at 10:44 AM, gurn said:

I'm not a fan of using capital letters to scream out a message but:

 

JAKE SURE LOOKS BETTER COMING DOWN THE LEFT WING THAN HIS NORMAL SPOT.

 

apologies for that.

Jake's post game said he doesn't mind which side he plays on. And that he can play both sides. I wish he said yeah I like LW better. Eggshells again.

[Gurn]

5 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Jake's post game said he doesn't mind which side he plays on.

Puts it back on the coach to decide, so how about it Travis?

Try  5 games on the left, take out Roussel and put Jake in that spot.

[RU SERIOUS]

Looks like Lazy Jake is now tied with some goalies in points with a bunch more a point or two behind him.    Can't believe Uncle Jim let TT walk out on us to Montreal where he has almost ten times the points of Lazy Jake for roughly a million and a half more.  What drugs was Uncle Jim on keeping this parasitic deadwood on the roster and why was he not dumped at Traded deadline for anything????  What a waste of a first pick!