Prospect Info: Canucks 2017 Prospect Rankings - #8

[MS]

Except that's basically what people are saying. I haven't read much else about why people are voting Virtanen this high.

Absolutely nobody is rating him ahead of Pettersson or Boeser or whoever, and that's what you claimed they should be doing if they felt his performance 2 years ago carried value. He's going to be ranked 8th. Ahead of a couple recent low-ish upside 2nd rounders who are miles from the NHL.

Did he look ready for the NHL in his Draft +2 season? Not at all. Did he take a step back in his Draft +1 season in the WHL from when he was drafted? Yes he did. Did he look like complete garbage in his Draft +3 season? Absolutely.

Now I agree he does have a nice skillset, but plenty of players have nice skillsets and they never put it together. Nothing we've seen from Virtanen suggests he will put it together.

I believe it was you who wrote off Shinkaruk after his poor Draft +2 season in the AHL, yet you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Virtanen?

I was very disappointed in Shinkaruk's development but still had him in the team's top 10 prospects at that stage, I think at #6 or #7 - albeit in a weaker group. Same as Virtanen, whose development I'm also disappointed in.

Again, I'm not saying Virtanen is complete garbage, just that he's been passed by several better prospects in our system.

And him dropping to 8th reflects that - he's been passed by Demko/Boeser/Goldobin/Gaudette. I can't remember if he was ranked on this list last year, but if he was I'm pretty sure he was top-3.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Absolutely nobody is rating him ahead of Pettersson or Boeser or whoever, and that's what you claimed they should be doing if they felt his performance 2 years ago carried value. He's going to be ranked 8th. Ahead of a couple recent low-ish upside 2nd rounders who are miles from the NHL.

Except if they're using the reasoning that Virtanen did something at the NHL level, if they're leaving it at that it can easily extend to him being ranked higher than Pettersson, Demko, and Dahlen. As I said, if there are other factors then let's hear them. Obviously there are. And my follow-up to that is: what are those other factors these people are looking at, and what about them put Virtanen ahead of Lind/Gadjovich/Dipietro/Subban?

If one is honest, this isn't a difficult question.

I was very disappointed in Shinkaruk's development but still had him in the team's top 10 prospects at that stage, I think at #6 or #7 - albeit in a weaker group. Same as Virtanen, whose development I'm also disappointed in.

It was a much weaker group. I'm quite high on the draft prospects we took this year, which, compared to some of our picks in past years, is significantly better. Maybe it helps that we actually drafted in the second round this time.

And him dropping to 8th reflects that - he's been passed by Demko/Boeser/Goldobin/Gaudette. I can't remember if he was ranked on this list last year, but if he was I'm pretty sure he was top-3.

Except you're ignoring context by saying "dropping to 8th reflects that." I believe there are other prospects in our system who are better than Virtanen. I believe, based on Virtanen's development and production that he's teetering on the brink of bust status. This year will be a huge year for him where he either has to step up and dominate the AHL at a PPG pace, or he becomes someone you try to move for whatever you can get. A repeat of last year and you can write him off as a bust.

But again, if you look at what Virtanen has done, ignoring his draft position, I don't see how he's top 10 on this list. Ronalds Kenins is a prospect who, albeit older, looked better at the NHL level than Virtanen has, and look how he ended up.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Dear Lord.

We are talking about the 8th best prospect, and comparing him to other players who are frankly longshots. Compared to these players, yes I think his previously demonstrated ability at the nhl merits consideration. Where should he be ranked? Last? Not a prospect? Frankly none of the players lower than 5 have anything but a decent chance of becoming anything. You are just being deliberately daft here. I am ranking Virtanen as a longshot slightly ahead of a few other longshot due to his previous demonstrated ability. I am not ranking him above Pettersson, who I do not consider a long shot.



That was ME who mentioned that, and I am the one arguing with you. Does that not indicate something to you?

I agree that at this point we're looking at longshots; however, I think Virtanen is much closer to being a bust than he is actually contributing at the NHL level whereas I can see Gajovich carving out a bottom 6 role if he improves on his skating. Kole Lind I think has middle 6 potential. Both had very good draft seasons (comparative or better than what Virtanen did).

Why do you have Virtanen ranked slightly ahead of these other prospects? And again, if it's solely because he looked competent for a month a couple seasons ago, why is that enough to rank him ahead of Lind and Gadjovich, but not Pettersson, Demko, and Dahlen? Honest question. I'm trying to understand your thought process here because it seems inconsistent.

 

[MS]

Except if they're using the reasoning that Virtanen did something at the NHL level, if they're leaving it at that it can easily extend to him being ranked higher than Pettersson, Demko, and Dahlen. As I said, if there are other factors then let's hear them. Obviously there are. And my follow-up to that is: what are those other factors these people are looking at, and what about them put Virtanen ahead of Lind/Gadjovich/Dipietro/Subban?

If one is honest, this isn't a difficult question.

Come on, man. This isn't that difficult to grasp. Saying 'he showed he can compete at the NHL level only 14 months ago, so I'm going to factor that into his ranking' doesn't somehow translate into 'because he was able to compete at the NHL level HE MUST BE OUR #1 PROSPECT!'

If I say in a discussion for our #11 prospect that the fact that Griffin Molino is the fastest guy in the organization might weigh that into ranking him there, are you going to start saying that 'IF YOU THINK HE'S THE FASTEST GUY IN THE ORGANIZATION, WHY ISN'T HE #1 OVERALL? Your reason easily extends!' It's ridiculous.

The reason for ranking him here is pretty simple 1) he has obvious NHL tools, 2) he has shown previously that he can use those tools effectively at the NHL level, albeit briefly, and 3) he's still young and can rebound after his disaster of a season.

He's MILES closer to the NHL than the other guys you list, and Subban has his own issues and own disappointing season to get over.

It was a much weaker group. I'm quite high on the draft prospects we took this year, which, compared to some of our picks in past years, is significantly better. Maybe it helps that we actually drafted in the second round this time.

Except you're ignoring context by saying "dropping to 8th reflects that." I believe there are other prospects in our system who are better than Virtanen. I believe, based on Virtanen's development and production that he's teetering on the brink of bust status. This year will be a huge year for him where he either has to step up and dominate the AHL at a PPG pace, or he becomes someone you try to move for whatever you can get. A repeat of last year and you can write him off as a bust.

But again, if you look at what Virtanen has done, ignoring his draft position, I don't see how he's top 10 on this list. Ronalds Kenins is a prospect who, albeit older, looked better at the NHL level than Virtanen has, and look how he ended up.

No. I'm being reasonable, and saying that 4 or 5 guys passed him, but you can't just ignore that this guy was keeping up in the NHL for a stretch barely more than a year ago. And it's exactly what I did with Shinkaruk, and you were FURIOUS with that in the other direction at the time because you were a huge fanboy of the disappointing player.

If he comes out and stinks to start this year, I'll have him at 15th in a big hurry. But a bad season driven mostly by off-ice stuff doesn't make him a worse prospect than a 4th round undersized goalie we just picked.

I'm not a fan of Virtanen and it feels weird to defend him. But, as usual, your reaction to things - both positive and negative - is completely over-the-top.

 

[MS]

I agree that at this point we're looking at longshots; however, I think Virtanen is much closer to being a bust than he is actually contributing at the NHL level whereas I can see Gajovich carving out a bottom 6 role if he improves on his skating. Kole Lind I think has middle 6 potential. Both had very good draft seasons (comparative or better than what Virtanen did).

Why do you have Virtanen ranked slightly ahead of these other prospects? And again, if it's solely because he looked competent for a month a couple seasons ago, why is that enough to rank him ahead of Lind and Gadjovich, but not Pettersson, Demko, and Dahlen? Honest question. I'm trying to understand your thought process here because it seems inconsistent.

Gadjovich and Lind both statistically have a 70-80% chance of busting. Thinking that Virtanen is more likely to bust than be a good NHL player, but is still a better prospect than Lind/Gadjovich, isn't logically inconsistent.

Those guys are also highly likely to bust, and are much further from the NHL. Simple.

And, again, your last comment is just bizarre. It's because Pettersson and Dahlen are WAY better prospects than Lind and Gadjovich, and thinking that his NHL success might help make him a better prospect than those guys doesn't mean you think that factor remotely bridges the gap to much better prospects. Like, how hard is this to figure out?

 

[y2kcanucks]

Gadjovich and Lind both statistically have a 70-80% chance of busting. Thinking that Virtanen is more likely to bust than be a good NHL player, but is still a better prospect than Lind/Gadjovich, isn't logically inconsistent.

Those guys are also highly likely to bust, and are much further from the NHL. Simple.

And, again, your last comment is just bizarre. It's because Pettersson and Dahlen are WAY better prospects than Lind and Gadjovich, and thinking that his NHL success might help make him a better prospect than those guys doesn't mean you think that factor remotely bridges the gap to much better prospects. Like, how hard is this to figure out?

And what is the statistical bust rate of a player who, in his Draft +3 season puts up 0.29 points per game in the AHL?

I agree that Pettersson and Dahlen are better prospects than Lind and Gadjovich. I'm trying to establish that, if we're looking at more than just Virtanen showing competent in a one month sample size a two seasons ago then we should do the same with the prospects he's being ranked against.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I agree that at this point we're looking at longshots; however, I think Virtanen is much closer to being a bust than he is actually contributing at the NHL level whereas I can see Gajovich carving out a bottom 6 role if he improves on his skating. Kole Lind I think has middle 6 potential. Both had very good draft seasons (comparative or better than what Virtanen did).

Why do you have Virtanen ranked slightly ahead of these other prospects? And again, if it's solely because he looked competent for a month a couple seasons ago, why is that enough to rank him ahead of Lind and Gadjovich, but not Pettersson, Demko, and Dahlen? Honest question. I'm trying to understand your thought process here because it seems inconsistent.

I look at it as sort of a tiered approach if you will.

With Pettersson, Boeser and to a lesser extent Dahlen you have guys who have fairly decent odds at being valuable nhl players. That makes them our best prospects. I don't rank Demko because I don't care about goalies.

The next tier are the Goldobin and Gaudette level prospects. These are the guys who are a good bet to become pros, with an outside shot at an NHL career. Goldobin has already put up numbers in the ahl so he's already there.

The remaining guys are all longshots. I would not bet even money on any of the remaining prospects becoming an nhl player. How you rank the remaining players is up to you. Some of these guys are a long ways away but also are on a good trajectory obviously as they were just drafted. Then there's Jake. I think Jake has shown an ability that puts him slightly ahead of say Lind.

I don't think it's a big deal, and I have no problem moving Jake down a bit. I agree with ms that he will drop like a stone if he pretty much doesn't immediately produce in the AHL next season.

A lot of these rankings involve the nuance and complexity of trying to suss out how much weight to put on banked progression vs supposed "upside." Even comparing Boeser and Pettersson makes this difficult. Boeser has already played in the nhl and looks good, but some think Pettersson can develop into a better player even though he's further away. It is similarly difficult to compare someone like Goldobin who is already a proven AHL player to someone like Gaudette who has not yet turned pro and is still a mystery box. Some people emphasize players who have already progressed to a certain level, making them safer. Other people emphasize "upside."

I put more weight on professional play than most people do. I should probably be ranking subban higher for that reason. Anyway, that's why we have these votes, so different people with different evaluation techniques can vote and come to a conclusion.

 

[vancityluongo]

Gadjovich and Lind both statistically have a 70-80% chance of busting. Thinking that Virtanen is more likely to bust than be a good NHL player, but is still a better prospect than Lind/Gadjovich, isn't logically inconsistent.

Those guys are also highly likely to bust, and are much further from the NHL. Simple.

And, again, your last comment is just bizarre. It's because Pettersson and Dahlen are WAY better prospects than Lind and Gadjovich, and thinking that his NHL success might help make him a better prospect than those guys doesn't mean you think that factor remotely bridges the gap to much better prospects. Like, how hard is this to figure out?

I think your percentages will bear out to be correct in the end, but I'm not sure I agree that Lind/Gadjovich are "further" away in a relative sense because they still have the advantage of three development years over Jake. Verv said it well earlier:

i would move jake for a #33 in a heartbeat and i was happy with the pick this year. i would move jake for lind if we didnt have lind

thus, jake is not as good of a prospect as lind

But re-phrased in another way, like I said in an earlier thread, this is just the Granlund-Shinkaruk trade argument. Sure Granlund (Jake) is further along, but based on remaining development years and current trajectory/production, I'd rather take the mystery box in Shinkaruk (Lind/Gadjovich). Even with Granlund as an NHL player and Shink as an almost guaranteed bust, I maintain that trade was bad value. Ergo, Lind/Gadjovich have more value right now than Jake. Only difference in the comparison IMO is that Granlund never had the pedigree Jake did...but I place essentially zero value to that.

That doesn't mean Jake should be 20th, but I think he's below those two and maybe Subban (but probably not).

 

[y2kcanucks]

I look at it as sort of a tiered approach if you will.

With Pettersson, Boeser and to a lesser extent Dahlen you have guys who have fairly decent odds at being valuable nhl players. That makes them our best prospects. I don't rank Demko because I don't care about goalies.

The next tier are the Goldobin and Gaudette level prospects. These are the guys who are a good bet to become pros, with an outside shot at an NHL career. Goldobin has already put up numbers in the ahl so he's already there.

The remaining guys are all longshots. I would not bet even money on any of the remaining prospects becoming an nhl player. How you rank the remaining players is up to you. Some of these guys are a long ways away but also are on a good trajectory obviously as they were just drafted. Then there's Jake. I think Jake has shown an ability that puts him slightly ahead of say Lind.

I don't think it's a big deal, and I have no problem moving Jake down a bit. I agree with ms that he will drop like a stone if he pretty much doesn't immediately produce in the AHL next season.

A lot of these rankings involve the nuance and complexity of trying to suss out how much weight to put on banked progression vs supposed "upside." Even comparing Boeser and Pettersson makes this difficult. Boeser has already played in the nhl and looks good, but some think Pettersson can develop into a better player even though he's further away. It is similarly difficult to compare someone like Goldobin who is already a proven AHL player to someone like Gaudette who has not yet turned pro and is still a mystery box. Some people emphasize players who have already progressed to a certain level, making them safer. Other people emphasize "upside."

I put more weight on professional play than most people do. I should probably be ranking subban higher for that reason. Anyway, that's why we have these votes, so different people with different evaluation techniques can vote and come to a conclusion.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for this explanation. If you're slotting them into separate tiers, and then do a separate ranking among each tiers then I can understand your explanation about Virtanen above these other prospects.

 

[MS]

And what is the statistical bust rate of a player who, in his Draft +3 season puts up 0.29 points per game in the AHL?

Awful, obviously. But none of those guys were competing well for a stretch in the NHL the year previously, either. Virtanen is pretty unique, and there aren't any true comparables to his situation.

I agree that Pettersson and Dahlen are better prospects than Lind and Gadjovich. I'm trying to establish that, if we're looking at more than just Virtanen showing competent in a one month sample size a two seasons ago then we should do the same with the prospects he's being ranked against.

OF COURSE WE'RE LOOKING AT MORE THAN THAT. NOBODY IS RANKING HIM AT #1.

This is just an absurd argument. Many things are factored into ranking a prospect. This is one in Virtanen's favour, that doesn't apply to other prospects. Other prospects have things in their favour that don't apply to Virtanen. On balance, Virtanen's positives and negatives will place him ahead of some prospects but behind others. This is not complicated, and I can't believe we're having this argument.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Awful, obviously. But none of those guys were competing well for a stretch in the NHL the year previously, either. Virtanen is pretty unique, and there aren't any true comparables to his situation.

Less than 30%?

OF COURSE WE'RE LOOKING AT MORE THAN THAT. NOBODY IS RANKING HIM AT #1.

This is just an absurd argument. Many things are factored into ranking a prospect. This is one in Virtanen's favour, that doesn't apply to other prospects. Other prospects have things in their favour that don't apply to Virtanen. On balance, Virtanen's positives and negatives will place him ahead of some prospects but behind others. This is not complicated, and I can't believe we're having this argument.

Good, now that we've established that, what other positives are there with Virtanen? Most people are only using the "he played well for one month" card. Which is why, when applying that to every other prospect I wanted to establish that there are other factors.

Do Lind and Gadjovich have tools that project well at the NHL level? Yes, they do. Does Virtanen have any more tools that would rank him ahead? Debatable. What other negatives do Lind and Gadjovich have that Virtanen doesn't? Perhaps negatives that outweigh how poorly Virtanen has progressed?

 

[vancityluongo]

This is just an absurd argument. Many things are factored into ranking a prospect. This is one in Virtanen's favour, that doesn't apply to other prospects. Other prospects have things in their favour that don't apply to Virtanen. On balance, Virtanen's positives and negatives will place him ahead of some prospects but behind others. This is not complicated, and I can't believe we're having this argument.

But it is more complicated than that because some (many) of those metrics are subjective?

How about this: would you have been okay with moving #33 before the draft for Michael Dal Colle? Your answer only needs to take into account two assumptions: a) Jake ≃ MDC, b) there was a reasonable value player available at 33. There may also be a third assumption that you think of value and prospect rankings as the same thing...?

Open/hoping to hear any arguments/explanations on how this is different from the Vey trade or Granlund/Shinkaruk or even the Gudbranson trade. In all of those cases, most of the people arguing for Jake here were firmly against the trades.

 

[Intoewsables]

This is the second time I've voted in one of these polls, and also the second time I've regretted my choice in the poll after reading through the choices again. Jesus.

Doesn't really matter since Virtanen is (inexplicably) running away with this one, but it's Lockwood here for me.

 

[JumpierPegasus]

Not going to quote everything, but I agree that Virtanen is more around our 10th-12th ranked prospect, but he can fall into the category of a Lind/Gadjovich/Lockwood/Brisebois because he has much more natural skill and talent than them. It's between the ears and in the gym for Virtanen. He lacks IQ and discipline, and he's lost a full year of development, maybe two which hurts him and puts him behind. But at least Virtanen has that speed and size to be a 4th line energy guy if he gets some of it together, and the skill, speed, size, and tenacity to be a top 6 guy if everything clicks (I doubt it will)

He was abysmal this season, mediocre to bad last season. But you can't deny his talent and size is intriguing as a prospect. He was ranked around 8-10 (ranked 7th by ISS) in his draft year for a reason, he is blazing fast, has a great shot, and is big. He just doesn't know how to utilize his game, and is out of shape. One of those is fixed, let's hope he keeps working on playing the PWF game better

I don't care much if he's ranked here, we're hitting some longer shots now, Virtanen is a guy you can take a pass on and hope he hits at least some of his potential. It goes Lockwood --> Lind --> Virtanen --> Brisebois --> Gadjovich (his skating scares me, but he seems eager to get better which is a good sign) for me

 

[iceburg]

Did anyone on here watch Virtanen play more than a few AHL games last year? I'll take Green's assessment who said Virtanen has made strides and hopes he can push for a spot this year (paraphrasing). I don't believe Green has said that he will make the leap this year but the fact that he thinks there is potential says a lot.

 

[rune74]

Did anyone on here watch Virtanen play more than a few AHL games last year? I'll take Green's assessment who said Virtanen has made strides and hopes he can push for a spot this year (paraphrasing). I don't believe Green has said that he will make the leap this year but the fact that he thinks there is potential says a lot.

It's funny how you are the only one to mention this. I agree 100%. Green had good things to say, also that he wasn't getting the resulting points, but was doing the right things. If some more of those breakaways and shots went in this would be another story around here...he was generating some pretty good shots in AHL.

 

[y2kcanucks]

It's funny how you are the only one to mention this. I agree 100%. Green had good things to say, also that he wasn't getting the resulting points, but was doing the right things. If some more of those breakaways and shots went in this would be another story around here...he was generating some pretty good shots in AHL.

If more of the Canucks shots went in they would have won the Stanley Cup.

 

[MS]

Less than 30%?

Again, there are no comparables. There has never been another player who performed well as an NHL regular at age 19 and then cratered in that fashion in the AHL at age 20. Comparing him to a bunch of guys who were nothing at 19 and then nothing again at 20 proves nothing.

If I had to guess, I'd put the odds of Virtanen becoming a decent regular NHL asset at about 25%. Which might be comparable to Lind and Gadjovich, but he's also closer to the NHL and that carries value.

Good, now that we've established that, what other positives are there with Virtanen? Most people are only using the "he played well for one month" card. Which is why, when applying that to every other prospect I wanted to establish that there are other factors.

Do Lind and Gadjovich have tools that project well at the NHL level? Yes, they do. Does Virtanen have any more tools that would rank him ahead? Debatable. What other negatives do Lind and Gadjovich have that Virtanen doesn't? Perhaps negatives that outweigh how poorly Virtanen has progressed?

This has been mentioned several times. He still has the size/skating/physical package and ability to drive play that give him Chris Kreider potential, even if he's much less likely to reach that potential than before.

I disagree that Lind has tools that project well at the NHL level. We'll see.

But it is more complicated than that because some (many) of those metrics are subjective?

How about this: would you have been okay with moving #33 before the draft for Michael Dal Colle? Your answer only needs to take into account two assumptions: a) Jake ≃ MDC, b) there was a reasonable value player available at 33. There may also be a third assumption that you think of value and prospect rankings as the same thing...?

Open/hoping to hear any arguments/explanations on how this is different from the Vey trade or Granlund/Shinkaruk or even the Gudbranson trade. In all of those cases, most of the people arguing for Jake here were firmly against the trades.

I would have happily taken a #33 pick for Virtanen before the draft, but I don't really like Kole Lind and had him rated much lower. Wouldn't have traded it for Dal Colle.

Obviously it's all subjective. But I don't think rating Virtanen in this position is 'unreasonable'.

And I have Zack MacEwen ahead of Virtanen right now, for the record. And I realize I'm on an island with that one.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Again, there are no comparables. There has never been another player who performed well as an NHL regular at age 19 and then cratered in that fashion in the AHL at age 20. Comparing him to a bunch of guys who were nothing at 19 and then nothing again at 20 proves nothing.

If I had to guess, I'd put the odds of Virtanen becoming a decent regular NHL asset at about 25%. Which might be comparable to Lind and Gadjovich, but he's also closer to the NHL and that carries value.

7 goals and 13 points in 55 games is considered as performing well as an NHL regular? It's not awful, but I wouldn't say he performed well. He had about a month where he looked competent. I think there are plenty of players who look OK at the NHL at a young age, who end up cratering and flaming out. Again, if we ignore his draft position he's probably a forgotten prospect.

This has been mentioned several times. He still has the size/skating/physical package and ability to drive play that give him Chris Kreider potential, even if he's much less likely to reach that potential than before.

I disagree that Lind has tools that project well at the NHL level. We'll see.

Gadjovich has those tools too, minus the skating. What about Lind don't you like?

I would have happily taken a #33 pick for Virtanen before the draft, but I don't really like Kole Lind and had him rated much lower. Wouldn't have traded it for Dal Colle.

Obviously it's all subjective. But I don't think rating Virtanen in this position is 'unreasonable'.

And I have Zack MacEwen ahead of Virtanen right now, for the record. And I realize I'm on an island with that one.

Yes, you certainly are on an island with that one.

 

[rune74]

If more of the Canucks shots went in they would have won the Stanley Cup.

This added absolutely nothing, thanks.

The point was that it wasn't that he wasn't generating offense it was that they weren't generating points to go along with it. I don't even think this is about Virtanen anymore, more that we didn't treat future all star Shrink good enough.

 

[y2kcanucks]

This added absolutely nothing, thanks.

The point was that it wasn't that he wasn't generating offense it was that they weren't generating points to go along with it. I don't even think this is about Virtanen anymore, more that we didn't treat future all star Shrink good enough.

What does this conversation have to do with Shinkaruk? If you want to re-hash that argument I don't think you'll win.

Regarding Virtanen...he averaged just under 2.2 shots per game. For someone who's supposed to be a skilled offensive player, and a shooter, that's awful. His SH% was low so I would expect some improvement there, but he's still closer to being a bust than he is an NHLer.

 

[settinguptheplay]

Here is a clip of a late season Utica post game interview with Green and Virtanen. Green is asked specifically about Virtanen. Of note to me was Green mentioning the dedication Jake has had to the game both off and on the ice. That portion of the interview starts at about 1:28.

Most noteworthy thing about Jakes interview is how much weight he has dropped. Also, It sounds like Green has gotten through to him as to what is expected for him to be an NHLer. Sounds a lot more mature and cannot help but think Green has had plenty to do with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydWO6s3-PdE

Perhaps someone can embed this properly for me?

 

[rune74]

What does this conversation have to do with Shinkaruk? If you want to re-hash that argument I don't think you'll win.

Regarding Virtanen...he averaged just under 2.2 shots per game. For someone who's supposed to be a skilled offensive player, and a shooter, that's awful. His SH% was low so I would expect some improvement there, but he's still closer to being a bust than he is an NHLer.

By all reports he got better towards the end of the year when he got in better shape, there were multiple reports of games where he had 6 or so shots. His overall average does not reflect that.

You have used Shrink as one of your little bullet points, I will agree with Virtanen being a buts when he is 23 and not in the NHL yet.

 

[y2kcanucks]

By all reports he got better towards the end of the year when he got in better shape, there were multiple reports of games where he had 6 or so shots. His overall average does not reflect that.

You have used Shrink as one of your little bullet points, I will agree with Virtanen being a buts when he is 23 and not in the NHL yet.

I put value in how many seasons they've had since their draft. To me it's not all about age, rather, where they are in their development relative to their draft cohort and other similar cohorts.

 

[rune74]

I put value in how many seasons they've had since their draft. To me it's not all about age, rather, where they are in their development relative to their draft cohort and other similar cohorts.

These arguments go no where, let's boil this down more.

Did he get better as he got in better shape, yes or no?