Confirmed with Link: Canucks place Jake Virtanen on unconditional waivers for buyout purposes

[bossram]

Fwiw, that's how I read it haha

Reading into the interview process is stupid. If anything, you'd expect a 17 year old athlete who played in a major Canadian market to be a bit of a moron with a lot of growing up to do. If they were too mature that might be because of coaching to hide some serious character flaws. Or they're an absolute square that their future teammates will hate. Etc.

There are lots of things that NHL teams are the authority on, and should be able to perform better than most average people. Interviewing is not really one of them. I've professionally interviewed hundreds of people and it is an absolute coin toss on what you get. It is impossible to boil down the human psyche and the entire personality and culmination of lived experiences of a person into questioning them for 45 minutes lol.

There's a lot of academic literature indicating that interviews are essentially pointless. There's no correlation between interview performance and job performance. So yeah, this checks out.

I doubt some under-educated old white guys talking to an air-headed 17 year-old would yield better results either.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

I agree completely that it was a stretch to blame Benning for the interview process, for reasons I've documented. Krutov and I are on the same side of the initial argument here.

My initial comment that he took offense to was that he should have just provided actual reasons why it was unfair to blame Benning rather than playing the 'What do you know, how many job interviews have you conducted?' card which was a) inflammatory and b) not actual evidence but instead an appeal to authority.



I mis-read where you were going with your weird Ouija board example but it doesn't really change anything. Your claim that that example (ridiculous claim -> rebuttal is a demand for actual evidence) is the same thing as my Travis Green criticism example (reasonable criticism -> rebuttal is an attack on the authority of the person making the argument) is just completely incorrect.

Agreed 1000%.

 

[F A N]

There's a lot of academic literature indicating that interviews are essentially pointless. There's no correlation between interview performance and job performance. So yeah, this checks out.

I doubt some under-educated old white guys talking to an air-headed 17 year-old would yield better results either.

I heard some CRA departments don't require an interview and (luck of the draw) that department is full of people who are anti-social and lacking in customer service skills.

 

[MarkMM]

I heard some CRA departments don't require an interview and (luck of the draw) that department is full of people who are anti-social and lacking in customer service skills.

Not sure if you're being facetious, but I could actually see that, lol.

I think interviews get too much weight in many hiring processes but overall they do provide SOME value, even if it's on the fringe end of the "hell no" hires. Other things like references (especially references they did not offer and that you back-channel to find yourself, which I'd imagine/hope scouts do), actual skills assessments (which the NHL would have an advantage in terms of other occupations, you can literally watch them work), previous work history (another advantage in that you can compare the players against their cohort) matter most, but a well structured interview can glean some information if you're dealing on the margins, and in extreme cases reveal wanton no-fits.

There was a guy we interviewed a couple years back who looked good on paper and tested well but in the interview he was just a straight jerk, we passed on him, and in the weeks following he sent threats to us (nothing violent that could be criminally charged, but threats to the business nonetheless) and though we can't confirm it beyond reasonable doubt that it was him, we received some clumsy cyber attacks that as best as we could tell were traced back to his geographic region.

So I think interviews get over-weighted but I wouldn't dismiss their value entirely.

 

[StreetHawk]

Jake likely interviewed well. I remember he was featured in Flames' interview videos and Flames fans loved him (being a Hitman helped of course). If you're just listening to his interviews he seems like a personable guy. Always has a smile on his face and would crack some jokes. Allegations aside, the guy also showed up to every offseason charity event. But of course how one is as a 17 year old doesn't always reflect how one is as a 23-25 year old multi-millionaire.

Looking back, when the players were asked who they least wanted to room with Jake, Myers took some time to think about it and answered Jake because it would be chaotic given that they were at different points in their lives and Myers would know since Jake trained with him the offseason prior.

Those pre draft interviews are pretty short aren’t they? Like 15-20 minutes only. I recall Burke said these kids are well prepared thus he tries to throw them off early to get them off a bit to get real honest answers but agencies these days prepare the kids really well.

watson in the nfl interviewed well. Look at his situation. Prior to the allegations against him this year he was highly regarded in the nfl. Even gave his first paycheque to some workers of the stadium. And he was 21 coming out of Clemson.

 

[mathonwy]

Jake was always a 1 step forward, 2 step backwards guy. He gave us glimpses that he was getting there (on and off the ice) and then something would pop up like he would do something stupid and we would be reminded that this is Jake Virtanen we're talking about. He is literally the definition of tools but no tool box. Good riddance.

Jake's progress mirrored the team's progress.

 

[M2Beezy]

Jake's progress mirrored the team's progress.

Positively toxic progress I suppose

 

[bossram]

I heard some CRA departments don't require an interview and (luck of the draw) that department is full of people who are anti-social and lacking in customer service skills.

The CRA is massive, so it might be a random branch or work unit that eschewed interviews. My mom works for the CRA and I know that her team does interviews.

Not sure if you're being facetious, but I could actually see that, lol.

I think interviews get too much weight in many hiring processes but overall they do provide SOME value, even if it's on the fringe end of the "hell no" hires. Other things like references (especially references they did not offer and that you back-channel to find yourself, which I'd imagine/hope scouts do), actual skills assessments (which the NHL would have an advantage in terms of other occupations, you can literally watch them work), previous work history (another advantage in that you can compare the players against their cohort) matter most, but a well structured interview can glean some information if you're dealing on the margins, and in extreme cases reveal wanton no-fits.

There was a guy we interviewed a couple years back who looked good on paper and tested well but in the interview he was just a straight jerk, we passed on him, and in the weeks following he sent threats to us (nothing violent that could be criminally charged, but threats to the business nonetheless) and though we can't confirm it beyond reasonable doubt that it was him, we received some clumsy cyber attacks that as best as we could tell were traced back to his geographic region.

So I think interviews get over-weighted but I wouldn't dismiss their value entirely.

I wouldn't dismiss them entirely either, because you'll need some kind of separator of candidates, but they're not really worth more than zero. I agree they help screen out completely off-base people, but within the range of reasonable hires, they won't tell you anything about their work performance.

The exception would be something like a customer service position. You need some level of people skills to be in customer service, so an interview could function as an actual skills assessment for that job. For basically any other kind of job, an actual skills assessment will tell you way more than an interview.

With respect to Virtanen, I'm not going to blame Bening and co. for not identifying Virtanen's off-ice issues in the interview. Interviewees are coached and just give canned answers.

 

[mathonwy]

Positively toxic progress I suppose

Pretty much.

He started his career on one of the most dysfunctional teams in one of the most dysfunctional locker rooms under one of the franchises shittiest coaches.

15-16 was a complete write off and Jake coming to camp the following season looking like the human blob kinda tells you everything.

 

[F A N]

With respect to Virtanen, I'm not going to blame Bening and co. for not identifying Virtanen's off-ice issues in the interview. Interviewees are coached and just give canned answers.

I agree. Outside of the team having someone say something misogynistic and seeing if the prospect would agree, say nothing, or call that person out on it, it's kind of hard to sift out how a player views and treat women through job like interviews. One could easily identify who is in a long term relationship and their plans for marriage but even then that's just a piece of information that may or may not have any relevance. It's the same with "locker room talk."

 

[bossram]

I agree. Outside of the team having someone say something misogynistic and seeing if the prospect would agree, say nothing, or call that person out on it, it's kind of hard to sift out how a player views and treat women through job like interviews. One could easily identify who is in a long term relationship and their plans for marriage but even then that's just a piece of information that may or may not have any relevance. It's the same with "locker room talk."

The biggest issue with the Virtanen selection was that he was just a bad pick at 6th overall. Any "scout" worth his salt should've been able to recognize how he played in junior was not going to translate to being a high-end NHLer.

Jake was/is an asshole as a kid, but a lot of NHLers are. That shouldn't have been disqualifying. What should have been disqualifying was that he wasn't that good.

 

[MS]

The biggest issue with the Virtanen selection was that he was just a bad pick at 6th overall. Any "scout" worth his salt should've been able to recognize how he played in junior was not going to translate to being a high-end NHLer.

Jake was/is an asshole as a kid, but a lot of NHLers are. That shouldn't have been disqualifying. What should have been disqualifying was that he wasn't that good.

The biggest issue was that he'd had a major shoulder reconstruction since the end of the season.

The rankings that had him in the neighborhood at #6 were all done pre-surgery. But when a physical player has that surgery, it should have dropped him several spots in the draft down to the 12-15 range and at that point the pick turns into a major reach. Basically after decades spent LOLing about how we picked JJ Daigneault on crutches, we did the exact same thing again.

His physical game and his shot were never the same after that injury.

 

[bossram]

The biggest issue was that he'd had a major shoulder reconstruction since the end of the season.

The rankings that had him in the neighborhood at #6 were all done pre-surgery. But when a physical player has that surgery, it should have dropped him several spots in the draft down to the 12-15 range and at that point the pick turns into a major reach. Basically after decades spent LOLing about how we picked JJ Daigneault on crutches, we did the exact same thing again.

His physical game and his shot were never the same after that injury.

Obviously, the shoulder surgery doesn't help, but Jake was always a fundamentally flawed player. Plus you could see the flashes of the shot and physicality (everyone remembers when he ran over McDavid at Young Stars!!!) so I don't think he was that physically limited. He just wasn't a good player.

In Junior, essentially all his scoring was a variation of skating down the wing and burning some 16-year-old defenseman or taking a shot from the circles. Against teenagers, you can play this way. Against NHLers, you can't. And we all know Jake doesn't have the hockey sense to really play a better or different style of game.

 

[F A N]

The biggest issue with the Virtanen selection was that he was just a bad pick at 6th overall. Any "scout" worth his salt should've been able to recognize how he played in junior was not going to translate to being a high-end NHLer.

Which part of his game that didn't translate? His skating? We've seen him generate a ton of breakaways with his speed. His physical game? Certainly, without his shoulder issues, he was capable of throwing some massive hits. Regardless, he was around 6'1" and for sure played at over 215lbs. He's a "heavy" dude. His shot? He did have 15 and 18 goal seasons but like MS said his shot hasn't been the same since his shoulder injury. His weaknesses remained his weaknesses but this isn't a case of Virtanen's game not translating.

His physical game and his shot were never the same after that injury.

I think so too. I keep going back to his first training camp he participated in where he hit everything that moved. Then I think he tweaked his shoulder again he was never the same.

 

[MS]

Obviously, the shoulder surgery doesn't help, but Jake was always a fundamentally flawed player. Plus you could see the flashes of the shot and physicality (everyone remembers when he ran over McDavid at Young Stars!!!) so I don't think he was that physically limited. He just wasn't a good player.

In Junior, essentially all his scoring was a variation of skating down the wing and burning some 16-year-old defenseman or taking a shot from the circles. Against teenagers, you can play this way. Against NHLers, you can't. And we all know Jake doesn't have the hockey sense to really play a better or different style of game.

His shot at 17 was lethal. It never looked remotely the same again.

Physically he had moments but as @F A N mentioned above there were multiple times where he seemed to re-injure it and just got more and more tentative physically.

He probably would still have been a bad pick at #6, but that injury really derailed him and drafting him knowing it was a potential problem was incredibly stupid.

 

[bossram]

Which part of his game that didn't translate? His skating? We've seen him generate a ton of breakaways with his speed. His physical game? Certainly, without his shoulder issues, he was capable of throwing some massive hits. Regardless, he was around 6'1" and for sure played at over 215lbs. He's a "heavy" dude. His shot? He did have 15 and 18 goal seasons but like MS said his shot hasn't been the same since his shoulder injury. His weaknesses remained his weaknesses but this isn't a case of Virtanen's game not translating.

His shot at 17 was lethal. It never looked remotely the same again.

Physically he had moments but as @F A N mentioned above there were multiple times where he seemed to re-injure it and just got more and more tentative physically.

He probably would still have been a bad pick at #6, but that injury really derailed him and drafting him knowing it was a potential problem was incredibly stupid.

It was never about the physical tools (which IMO, did not decline that much post-surgery).

It was about the hockey IQ and offensive creation. There are not many (any?) high-end offensive players in the NHL whose entire offensive game involves just skating down the wing and hoping to 1) beat the defender wide, or 2) just snipe it from the circles. That's how Jake played in junior and how he continued to play in the NHL. That playstyle was never going to translate into becoming a good NHLer.

The only guys who play a similar game and I would consider top-six forwards (off the top of my head) are Evander Kane and Chris Kreider. Maybe you can lump in Josh Anderson. But the former two still have much better hockey IQ and offensive zone cycle/spacing games than Jake ever did.

It was primarily just a failure of scouting.

 

[F A N]

It was never about the physical tools (which IMO, did not decline that much post-surgery).

It was about the hockey IQ and offensive creation. There are not many (any?) high-end offensive players in the NHL whose entire offensive game involves just skating down the wing and hoping to 1) beat the defender wide, or 2) just snipe it from the circles. That's how Jake played in junior and how he continued to play in the NHL. That playstyle was never going to translate into becoming a good NHLer.

The only guys who play a similar game and I would consider top-six forwards (off the top of my head) are Evander Kane and Chris Kreider. Maybe you can lump in Josh Anderson. But the former two still have much better hockey IQ and offensive zone cycle/spacing games than Jake ever did.

It was primarily just a failure of scouting.

I was responding to your point that how he played in junior would not translate. It actually kind of did is my point. He was able to beat defenders wide. Like I said, there was a period of time where he seemingly had one breakaway a game so he was able to drive the puck to the net. He just couldn't finish.

Were these not the type of goals he scored in junior:

 

[MarkMM]

His shot at 17 was lethal. It never looked remotely the same again.

Physically he had moments but as @F A N mentioned above there were multiple times where he seemed to re-injure it and just got more and more tentative physically.

He probably would still have been a bad pick at #6, but that injury really derailed him and drafting him knowing it was a potential problem was incredibly stupid.

Only thing I'd add is what made him a bad pick in addition to the points above was the alternatives available at that time. I can understand reasons to be excited (speed, size/power and shot), reasons to be worried (for me the big thing was numerous questions about his hockey IQ, but then on top of that the questions of whether his way of bullying kids would translate as well, and then on top of that the injuries), but in the end, there were exciting players that have smarts and skill and compete, and I personally optimize that over a physical package.

 

[bossram]

I was responding to your point that how he played in junior would not translate. It actually kind of did is my point. He was able to beat defenders wide. Like I said, there was a period of time where he seemingly had one breakaway a game so he was able to drive the puck to the net. He just couldn't finish.

Were these not the type of goals he scored in junior:

That this is likely the high-water mark of his career (a season where he shot 12%) is why I say this type of game doesn't translate. It's not the lack of finishing. His finishing that season was inflated. It's that this style of game doesn't produce many chances, which prevented him from becoming a real top-six forward.

That's the best you can hope for from a player like Virtanen (in a fortunate season!). That's why he was a poor selection.

 

[F A N]

Only thing I'd add is what made him a bad pick in addition to the points above was the alternatives available at that time. I can understand reasons to be excited (speed, size/power and shot), reasons to be worried (for me the big thing was numerous questions about his hockey IQ, but then on top of that the questions of whether his way of bullying kids would translate as well, and then on top of that the injuries), but in the end, there were exciting players that have smarts and skill and compete, and I personally optimize that over a physical package.

Well the draft had a top 4 (order of which differed) + Dal Colle. That was kind of popular perception. I thought Dal Colle would bust at the time but I acknowledge that he was the consensus #5 pick.

Who came afterwards were a select group of forwards (in no particular order): Nylander, Ehlers, Virtanen, Ritchie with Fleury as the best available Dman. As popular as Nylander/Ehlers were on this board, there were some question marks. Ehlers was very slight at the time and I think the fact that he played with Drouin (who was considered better and more dynamic) might have caused him to drop a bit in the draft. Nylander had the reputation of being a prima donna and a selfish player (having played for 3 organizations in his draft-eligible year which is rather unheard of in Sweden). You got to wonder though, if Gillis was the GM, would he have picked Nylander having known his father well? Gillis did pick Mallet over his nephew Adam Pelech (a monumental mistake). The Canucks were also outspoken about the organization having overrated QMJHL prospects. So if that leaves Virtanen vs. Ritchie, I think it was a bit of a toss up with Virtanen having the higher upside due to his skating. Throw in the fact that he is a hometown boy and he was essentially sealed and delivered.

 

[MS]

Well the draft had a top 4 (order of which differed) + Dal Colle. That was kind of popular perception. I thought Dal Colle would bust at the time but I acknowledge that he was the consensus #5 pick.

Who came afterwards were a select group of forwards (in no particular order): Nylander, Ehlers, Virtanen, Ritchie with Fleury as the best available Dman. As popular as Nylander/Ehlers were on this board, there were some question marks. Ehlers was very slight at the time and I think the fact that he played with Drouin (who was considered better and more dynamic) might have caused him to drop a bit in the draft. Nylander had the reputation of being a prima donna and a selfish player (having played for 3 organizations in his draft-eligible year which is rather unheard of in Sweden). You got to wonder though, if Gillis was the GM, would he have picked Nylander having known his father well? Gillis did pick Mallet over his nephew Adam Pelech (a monumental mistake). The Canucks were also outspoken about the organization having overrated QMJHL prospects. So if that leaves Virtanen vs. Ritchie, I think it was a bit of a toss up with Virtanen having the higher upside due to his skating. Throw in the fact that he is a hometown boy and he was essentially sealed and delivered.

It's been a long time but if Gillis stayed the reports at the time indicated the pick would have been either Nylander or that they would have gone off the board for Dylan Larkin.

 

[F A N]

That this is likely the high-water mark of his career (a season where he shot 12%) is why I say this type of game doesn't translate. It's not the lack of finishing. His finishing that season was inflated. It's that this style of game doesn't produce many chances, which prevented him from becoming a real top-six forward.

That's the best you can hope for from a player like Virtanen (in a fortunate season!). That's why he was a poor selection.

But he shot 9.74% the season before. Even this past season he shot 10%.

18-19: 15 goals, 154 shots, 70 games (2PPG).
19-20: 18 goals, 150 shots, 69 games (6PPG).

Minutes wise, Virtanen got a bit more PP time and less ES time in 19-20.
5v5 Virtanen shot 1.02% better in 19-20.

12% is hardly this unsustainable shooting percentage.

Virtanen was considered to have perhaps the best shot in the entire draft. Like MS said, that was pre-shoulder surgery. Even still, he can score goals from above the circle. There are certainly flaws in his game but the parts that the scouts were high on did translate to the NHL.

Here's his goals from 18-19



The fact of the matter is that the goals you think that Virtanen can only score in the WHL he has done it in the NHL. Blow by a Dman and get to the net? Score in transition? Rip a puck into the net from above the circles? Now he obviously hasn't been able to do more of it. He has certainly bungled breakaway opportunities and took low percentage shots. But a lot of the goals he scored were closer to a goal scorer's goal than some lucky fluke. When he scores a goal, it's often because he managed to find the time and space.

 

[bossram]

But he shot 9.74% the season before. Even this past season he shot 10%.

18-19: 15 goals, 154 shots, 70 games (2PPG).
19-20: 18 goals, 150 shots, 69 games (6PPG).

Minutes wise, Virtanen got a bit more PP time and less ES time in 19-20.
5v5 Virtanen shot 1.02% better in 19-20.

12% is hardly this unsustainable shooting percentage.

Virtanen was considered to have perhaps the best shot in the entire draft. Like MS said, that was pre-shoulder surgery. Even still, he can score goals from above the circle. There are certainly flaws in his game but the parts that the scouts were high on did translate to the NHL.

Here's his goals from 18-19



The fact of the matter is that the goals you think that Virtanen can only score in the WHL he has done it in the NHL. Blow by a Dman and get to the net? Score in transition? Rip a puck into the net from above the circles? Now he obviously hasn't been able to do more of it. He has certainly bungled breakaway opportunities and took low percentage shots. But a lot of the goals he scored were closer to a goal scorer's goal than some lucky fluke. When he scores a goal, it's often because he managed to find the time and space.

Now I'm confused though. You were saying that the surgery severely hampered his shot, but now we're discussing that he actually is a very talented shooter considering his shooting percentage each season. This is why I don't think his physical tools were that severely hampered. Is the counterfactual that without surgery Virtanen is a true talent 12-15% shooter? I just think that's hard to believe.

My opinion that "his game wouldn't translate" is not that it is impossible to score goals in that fashion in the NHL. Clearly it is not - I suppose I was a bit hyperbolic on my original post on this topic. What I was trying to say was that his particular playstyle would not translate to being a high-end offensive player, not that it is practically impossible to score goals streaking down the wing. There are very few true top-six players that play this way (I mentioned Kane, Kreider, and kinda Josh Anderson). But the former two definitely have other components to their games and are more well-rounded. This is what I mean by this playstyle is not "translatable" to being a good offensive player - there are simply not many players like that.

Again, it's not that it's impossible to score like that in the NHL. It's that the frequency of those types of chances for Jake are too infrequent for him to have ever become a high-end offensive player, and he always lacked the hockey IQ to create scoring chances in other ways.

 

[F A N]

Now I'm confused though. You were saying that the surgery severely hampered his shot, but now we're discussing that he actually is a very talented shooter considering his shooting percentage each season. This is why I don't think his physical tools were that severely hampered. Is the counterfactual that without surgery Virtanen is a true talent 12-15% shooter? I just think that's hard to believe.

My opinion that "his game wouldn't translate" is not that it is impossible to score goals in that fashion in the NHL. Clearly it is not - I suppose I was a bit hyperbolic on my original post on this topic. What I was trying to say was that his particular playstyle would not translate to being a high-end offensive player, not that it is practically impossible to score goals streaking down the wing. There are very few true top-six players that play this way (I mentioned Kane, Kreider, and kinda Josh Anderson). But the former two definitely have other components to their games and are more well-rounded. This is what I mean by this playstyle is not "translatable" to being a good offensive player - there are simply not many players like that.

Again, it's not that it's impossible to score like that in the NHL. It's that the frequency of those types of chances for Jake are too infrequent for him to have ever become a high-end offensive player, and he always lacked the hockey IQ to create scoring chances in other ways.

But what was his play style? You said: "In Junior, essentially all his scoring was a variation of skating down the wing and burning some 16-year-old defenseman or taking a shot from the circles. Against teenagers, you can play this way. Against NHLers, you can't."

In the clips, he clearly can. Even his first NHL goal where he chipped the puck up forward and blew by the guy defending him and got to the net:



Obviously, unless you're Ovechkin, you can't score 30+ goals one way. And Virtanen did score off on one timers, off his quick releases, due being available for open feeds, from forechecking, and goals resulting from him being near the front of the net.

The fact of the matter is that when Virtanen was at his best he was capable of making an impact physically and he was seemingly good for one breakaway a game. When given some time and space he was able to pick corners. He's not a high end offensive player because of his work rate, flaws in his game, and other reasons. It wasn't because of his play style. He can certainly play his style of game and succeed if he had say Tyler Motte's motor and good health.

 

[mathonwy]

It was never about the physical tools (which IMO, did not decline that much post-surgery).

It was about the hockey IQ and offensive creation. There are not many (any?) high-end offensive players in the NHL whose entire offensive game involves just skating down the wing and hoping to 1) beat the defender wide, or 2) just snipe it from the circles. That's how Jake played in junior and how he continued to play in the NHL. That playstyle was never going to translate into becoming a good NHLer.

The only guys who play a similar game and I would consider top-six forwards (off the top of my head) are Evander Kane and Chris Kreider. Maybe you can lump in Josh Anderson. But the former two still have much better hockey IQ and offensive zone cycle/spacing games than Jake ever did.

It was primarily just a failure of scouting.

Jake played 5 seasons with us and didn't develop chemistry with anyone.

Eriksson played 5 and the same.

Sutter played 6 and the same.

Granlund played 4 and the same.

Beagle played 3 and the same.

Like most of us when we were just entering the workforce, Jake needs to be a non-toxic environment to be able to show the necessary intelligence and creativity required to succeed.

An environment of motivated, supportive and talented co-workers that challenge each other to be better.

Which is not the Canucks.

To us it's entertainment. To Jake, it's his work and since he became an NHLer, his workplace has blown goats.

It's an epic scouting failure that the Canucks chose him over the euro's on the board.

It's an epic organizational failure that the Canucks developed him into shit.

f*** the Aquilinis.