[proposal] Jake Virtanen for Tyler Johnson

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

Johnson’s point totals are a direct result of him Being buried on a heavily stacked Tampa team.  He’d be a 3rd line / 2B center almost anywhere else.  He scored 29 goals in 18-19.

 

”finesse” diminutive players like Johnson also tend to age very well (case in point, Radim Vrbata).  
 

It's funny - JT Miller was widely referred to as a cap dump in this market....still is by some people.

 

had comparable terms to Johnson....

 

played in Tampa's bottom six - scored 65 pts in 94 games there.  was 25 yrs old - just approaching his prime....much heavier game than Johnson...

 

here, we're treating Johnson like he's not a cap dump....

Johnson 22 pts in 55 games....playing with Cirelli and Killorn this year.

35 pts last year while playing with Cirelli and Killorn - those guys had 49, 44 pts.  When he wasn't playing with them, he was elevated in the lineup far moreso than playing with alternate bottom 6....

 

He, quite simply, plays with players that are better than he is, and gets outproduced consistently by both his linemates - so the storyline that his production is deflated because of a stacked team, only holds a very small amount of water, while leaking the bulk of the truth.

 

In 18/19 he played with Kucherov and Point - they combined for 220 pts - while he scored 47.

 

Johnson would not be in our top 6 - at least not a healthy top 6 - nor should he be - and he's also not going to be playing with Cirelli and Killorn on our 3rd line (nor with Tampa's SC quality blueline) - so if you're expecting an uptick on his production due to the 'buried on a deep team' storyline - I'd expect you to be disappointed.  I think realistically - unless Johnson were to reverse-decline / incline! - you're looking at a best case scenario of Sam Gagner type production here - because Johnson might see a bit more ice time on our 3rd line...but Sam Gagner at $5 million x 3 years....so imo we better be compensated handsomely for eating that - and I don't think that's what the management group has in mind.  If we'd be getting a RHD like Foote in the process, who likely improves our team in other areas in due course, and perhaps a partner for Johnson - maybe?   My guess would be that the team would prefer to spend an asset/1st to acquire a Foote, than eat that much cap in an important emerging cap window for this team...

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by oldnews

[GB5]

This is the kind of trade that I think GMJB is looking to do this offseason.

 

I like this one but I wonder how tarnished Jake is now with the civil suite. He carries some baggage now and there are a few questions will need to be answered  such as, does this affect his trade value, how well can Jake rebound, can be be the potential 20 goal guy again that he has been so close to?

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, GarthButcher5 said:

This is the kind of trade that I think GMJB is looking to do this offseason.

 

I like this one but I wonder how tarnished Jake is now with the civil suite. He carries some baggage now and there are a few questions will need to be answered  such as, does this affect his trade value, how well can Jake rebound, can be be the potential 20 goal guy again that he has been so close to?

We are not in any way taking TJ’s contract.  He was on waivers, and no one took him.  We will buy out Jake.  

[GB5]

Just now, Alflives said:

We are not in any way taking TJ’s contract.  He was on waivers, and no one took him.  We will buy out Jake.  

I didn't actually say I was in support of taking TJ, I said this is the kind of trade that should be made.

 

Why buy out Jake if you can trade him, TJ is owned too much $$'s and term which is why he cleared waivers but find a player where the numbers are more favorable then ya, this team needs to explore all options.

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, GarthButcher5 said:

I didn't actually say I was in support of taking TJ, I said this is the kind of trade that should be made.

 

Why buy out Jake if you can trade him, TJ is owned too much $$'s and term which is why he cleared waivers but find a player where the numbers are more favorable then ya, this team needs to explore all options.

TJ has three more yeRs at 5 per.  That’s way too much for him.  He’s a serious cap dump.

Jake has one year at 2.5.  We can buy out Jake and he only counts 50k on this year’s cap and 500k next year.  

There is zero chance Benning trades Jake for TJ or any player.  Jake is very much damaged goods (rightly so) and his NHL career is over.  

[GB5]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

TJ has three more yeRs at 5 per.  That’s way too much for him.  He’s a serious cap dump.

Jake has one year at 2.5.  We can buy out Jake and he only counts 50k on this year’s cap and 500k next year.  

There is zero chance Benning trades Jake for TJ or any player.  Jake is very much damaged goods (rightly so) and his NHL career is over.  

OK, if you say so. 

[Bertuzzipunch]

TJ has 2 years left with a respectable contract. Not sure you know what you’re talking about. 

[oldnews]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

TJ has three more yeRs at 5 per.  That’s way too much for him.  He’s a serious cap dump.

Jake has one year at 2.5.  We can buy out Jake and he only counts 50k on this year’s cap and 500k next year.  

There is zero chance Benning trades Jake for TJ or any player.  Jake is very much damaged goods (rightly so) and his NHL career is over.  

we can get a TJ comparable - for much, much less - (league minimum to 3 million, short term, depending on the quality of the player) - in the present market - and find a better fit in the process - ie a guy that can kill penalties and eat hard minutes....

I don't see the team wanting to eat cap for assets at this stage - I think they've always been averse to that approach (we can debate that they stuck themselves with bad contracts anyway and 'could have' got assets instead - some valid cases in point of that) - but regardless, I don't think they're looking to / intending to 'weaponize' cap at this point - I think they're looking to take the youth on an upward trajectory.  I don't think Johnson type acquisitions will accomplish that.

 

But I agree with GarthButcher in the sense that the team 'should' be looking to these 'kinds of deals' - with the critical difference being that they target players who are in fact deflated in present circumstances (as Miller arguably was) - as opposed to appearances / a general view that players are necessarily deflated because of playing on a deep team (which isn't always the case - sometime they're actually inflated in a limited role..).

 

I'd prefer we target a Nick Paul type player instead...who I think is 'deflated' by context - and likely to (continue to) uptick...

'Only' 20 pts this year - but 25 years old...

38.8% offensive zone starts, 50% corsi

52.1% in the faceoff circle (420 faceoffs - over 50% last year as well as a young center...)

40 takeaways, 17 giveaways, +23 differential

2:07 / game of penalty killing ice time - 1 goal, 3 assists shorthanded.

2.5 on ice goals against per 60 5on5 - lowest of all Senators regulars....+5.

6'4, 230lbs, 74 hits...

1.35 million cap hit (one year of term remaining).

This is the player - the type of young forward/center option - I want to see them target.

 

 

 

 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

we can get a TJ comparable - for much, much less - (league minimum to 3 million, short term, depending on the quality of the player) - in the present market - and find a better fit in the process - ie a guy that can kill penalties and eat hard minutes....

I don't see the team wanting to eat cap for assets at this stage - I think they've always been averse to that approach (we can debate that they stuck themselves with bad contracts anyway and 'could have' got assets instead - some valid cases in point of that) - but regardless, I don't think they're looking to / intending to 'weaponize' cap at this point - I think they're looking to take the youth on an upward trajectory.  I don't think Johnson type acquisitions will accomplish that.

 

But I agree with GarthButcher in the sense that the team 'should' be looking to these 'kinds of deals' - with the critical difference being that they target players who are in fact deflated in present circumstances (as Miller arguably was) - as opposed to appearances / a general view that players are necessarily deflated because of playing on a deep team (which isn't always the case - sometime they're actually inflated in a limited role..).

 

I'd prefer we target a Nick Paul type player instead...who I think is 'deflated' by context - and likely to (continue to) uptick...

'Only' 20 pts this year - but 25 years old...

38.8% offensive zone starts, 50% corsi

52.1% in the faceoff circle (420 faceoffs - over 50% last year as well as a young center...)

40 takeaways, 17 giveaways, +23 differential

2:07 / game of penalty killing ice time - 1 goal, 3 assists shorthanded.

2.5 on ice goals against per 60 5on5 - lowest of all Senators regulars....+5.

6'4, 230lbs, 74 hits...

1.35 million cap hit (one year of term remaining).

This is the player - the type of young forward/center option - I want to see them target.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely.  Hopefully JB can bring in another really good player via trade.  If we can’t get a guy like Paul, 

@oldnewswould resigning Sutter be a wise move?  If so how much is fair?  

[Sbriggs]

17 hours ago, D-Money said:

Not sure we have the cap for this, but I like the idea.

 

Most likely Jake will be bought out. It’s only 1/3, and the way the contract was structured there will be very little penalty for the club.

No I think his contract will be voided because of clauses due to his off ice behaviour

[Quantum]

Johnson's going to Seattle. Hometown kid buried on a deep Lightning team. No way he's not with the Kraken next season. Though I've always liked Johnson and he'd be a great fit as the 3C if the Canucks could somehow get him.

 

Virtanen isn't a tradeable asset. He's probably done in the NHL. The accusations made against him make him a toxic presence in the locker room and he's not good enough to overcome them like, say, Patrick Kane. Unless, much like Kane, Virtanen can prove that he's the victim of an elaborate hoax, I don't see how he continues having an NHL career. He's most likely going have his contract terminated and he may be able to go play in the KHL for a few years but that's a big maybe right now.

[BigTramFan]

2 hours ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

TJ has 2 years left with a respectable contract. Not sure you know what you’re talking about. 

Three years

[Bertuzzipunch]

3 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

Three years

Lol i got mixed up. Was thinking JT miller

[PetterssonOrPeterson]

17 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

Maybe, but a happy Jake is a productive Jake.  Jake has his warts, but the guy was on a 20 goal pace pre-Covid.  Everyone reacts differently to covid fatigue and I do believe that more social extroverted people are affected harder than introverts.   I believe that this is what has happened to Virtanen.  
 

Bo Horvat has more of a Michael Jordan/Jonathan Toews personality.  Virtanen has more of a Dennis Rodman personality imo.

Well if he isn't on our team anymore then who cares if he's productive or not? 

 

I couldn't give a rat's *** if a player somehow revives his career and starts producing if it isn't for this team.

Edited May 22, 2021 by PetterssonOrPeterson

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, Alflives said:

Absolutely.  Hopefully JB can bring in another really good player via trade.  If we can’t get a guy like Paul, 

@oldnewswould resigning Sutter be a wise move?  If so how much is fair?  

I don't know if my opinion would be wisdom - but I'd probably try to bring him back (particularly if Beagle is as rumoured / unlikely to return next year).

A few of my favorite alternative options have re-signed (ie Lowry).....there will be the Richies and Thompson types on the market, but their appeal relative to Sutter has always been cap hit - at a reduced cap hit, Sutter becomes that much more valuable imo.  I'd hope we could bring him back around 2 million over a few years - may be a lowball but simply due to his injury history here that has limited his relative value imo.... If he's interested in talking in that range or slightly countered, I'd take him again.

[Lil B From The Pack]

21 hours ago, bigbadcanucks said:

Virtanen is more valuable as a termination/buy out candidate.

 

Pavel Bure wearing a turban.  About the stupidest thing I've seen here on CDC.

What does the turban have to do with anything?

[mrturkish]

On 5/21/2021 at 7:01 PM, Patel Bure said:

[proposal] Jake Virtanen for Tyler Johnson
 

Why Tampa does this:

 

-Reduce cap space and long term liabilities

-Get a youngish player that could thrive in a new environment 

 

Why the Canucks do this:

-Significantly improve their 3rd line C spot

-Tyler Johnson still has game.  He’s just been buried on a very deep Tampa team and is on the 4th line as a result.

-The young and upcoming Podkolzin will be guaranteed to play with a good offensive minded center regardless of which line he plays on.  This will help his development.

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Hoglander

Roussel-Johnson-Podkolzin

Motte-Lind-Highmore

 

 

 

 

Virtanen  has absolutely zero value at this point. So no other team in the league will take a chance on this. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

On 5/21/2021 at 9:02 PM, Patel Bure said:

That’s not Pavel Bure.  
 

That’s Patel Bure (me).

 

I am sorry that you think I look stupid.  :’-(

I kind of think you look like Curt Frazer with a turban.....good lookin guy he is!

[Patel Bure]

59 minutes ago, mrturkish said:

Virtanen  has absolutely zero value at this point. So no other team in the league will take a chance on this. 

He is still young and cheap-ish, and would significantly help Tampa by allowing them to move a 5 million dollar player playing on their 4th line.  At best, Virtanen re-finds his game in a post Covid “back to clubbing” type world in which he can be happy and sociable.  At worst, Tampa moves on him from after a year.

[garthsbutcher]

On 5/21/2021 at 9:16 PM, Ghostsof1915 said:

Rather see Jake for Logan Stanley. But does Jake really have any value? 

Less than none