Confirmed with Link: Canucks re-sign Jake Virtanen [2 years, $1.25M AAV]

[pgj98m3]

One of Benning’s best....where was this skill with the vets he signed and/or extended???

 

[Jyrki21]

Feels like he took the multi year deal just in case he continues to disappoint in which case he would be offered even less next year.

You'd kind of have to think that he might end up in the SM-Liiga at that point.

 

[2011 still hurts]

Okay deal. Had no arbitration rights as an RFA so not a huge "discount" in my eyes but the deal makes sense considering where Jake's game is right now

Hopefully he ends up becoming a 40-50 point player and the deal looks great in 2020.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

2 yrs is perfect. Very pleased w this.

 

[M2Beezy]

Excellent deal again

 

[GetFocht]

Good contract, at this point it will be great if he settles into a bottom six power forward that can contribute 12-15 goals. We might see a couple 20 goal seasons from him in his prime.

 

[Pavel96]

Lol - Beagle makes almost 3x what Jake does. Why?

 

[GetFocht]

Lol - Beagle makes almost 3x what Jake does. Why?

lets see, he's one of the best face-off men in the league, RH Centre, eats up PK time, has won a stanley cup, is a consistent 20 point forward, and has reached a stage in his career where he deserves to get paid more.

His words are going to carry weight in a locker room full of young players.

 

[Addison Rae]

lets see, he's one of the best face-off men in the league, RH Centre, eats up PK time, has won a stanley cup, is a consistent 20 point forward, and has reached a stage in his career where he deserves to get paid more.

His words are going to carry weight in a locker room full of young players.

lmao

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Excellent deal again

Again for the first time! \o/

 

[Pavel96]

lets see, he's one of the best face-off men in the league, RH Centre, eats up PK time, has won a stanley cup, is a consistent 20 point forward, and has reached a stage in his career where he deserves to get paid more.

His words are going to carry weight in a locker room full of young players.

And that's one of the reasons the Canucks are doing so poorly now, year after year. Paying for past performances (I thought it was obvious that good management shouldn't do that in a salary cap- they move the player before they get to that point, gaining assets and opening up cap space and opportunity for others to develop into that kind of player). As well as putting the highest premium on off the ice stuff I've ever seen.

How much of their cap is dedicated to guys that are good in the room but below average at actually playing hockey? Past cups, being good in the room etc - sure that's obviously nice and all - but how about some statistics that directly involve playing hockey- on the ice. Not talking to players in a dressing room. Why can't their big signings the last few years be good in the room and enough is enough (Eriksonn, Gagner, Gubranson)? How on earth could Beagle/roussell/schaller carry more weight than the Sedins who are leaving? So even with this 'surplus of weight in the room', the Sedins carried for the last few years- the team was horrible. How much weight needs to be carried for this team to win more games?

 

[Jay Cee]

I like it. On a two year deal that's what I would call fair value.

 

[Josepho]

No complaints really.

 

[y2kcanucks]

" nothing to get worked up about"

Then immidiately Proceeds to get worked up about it in the thread

Asking a question is considered getting worked up about it? Or are you like this anytime someone questions something Benning does? "Oh no, don't question the dear leader, we must praise him. Praise him!!!"

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Asking a question is considered getting worked up about it? Or are you like this anytime someone questions something Benning does? "Oh no, don't question the dear leader, we must praise him. Praise him!!!"

I think you might be falling for a fallacy here;


"Genetic"

You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.

 

[Melvin]

Fair contract. Really liked the season Jake had last year and am worried the org has somewhat given up on him in favor of shinier new toys.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

About what I expected. Make or break year for Jake I think. It’s sometimes easy to forget how young he actually is. But he needs to come into camp in great shape and force the coach to play him more minutes. I thought his defensive play was much better last year but he needs to start improving his offensive numbers or he’ll always be a fourth liner. Big year for him.

 

[M2Beezy]

Again for the first time! \o/

I wonder if he will be UFA at the end of the two years or if is still controllable by contract for management

 

[RobertKron]

And that's one of the reasons the Canucks are doing so poorly now, year after year. Paying for past performances (I thought it was obvious that good management shouldn't do that in a salary cap- they move the player before they get to that point, gaining assets and opening up cap space and opportunity for others to develop into that kind of player). As well as putting the highest premium on off the ice stuff I've ever seen.

How much of their cap is dedicated to guys that are good in the room but below average at actually playing hockey? Past cups, being good in the room etc - sure that's obviously nice and all - but how about some statistics that directly involve playing hockey- on the ice. Not talking to players in a dressing room. Why can't their big signings the last few years be good in the room and enough is enough (Eriksonn, Gagner, Gubranson)? How on earth could Beagle/roussell/schaller carry more weight than the Sedins who are leaving? So even with this 'surplus of weight in the room', the Sedins carried for the last few years- the team was horrible. How much weight needs to be carried for this team to win more games?

“Good in the room” is often such a weird, cop-out reason given to try to prop up questionable moves. This isn’t to say that Beagle might not be good in the room, but we’re not talking about Mark Messier (who, ironically, was terrible in the room when he came here) here.

A player’s role in the mix is pretty contextual. The idea that every mid-to-low-roster, character vet is going to arrive here and automatically be “good in the room” is, honestly, pretty stupid, and reeks of rationalizing bad decisions. Some teams work well with certain personalities, and some don’t. Every team has its own unique version of the normal pecking order, and unless we’re talking about someone with really extreme qualities, most guys show up and find their spot in the mix.

Brandon Prust was supposed to be great in the room here because he was a mucker who had been through the grind and would show the kids how to work hard and all that, and because he meshed well with some of the young guys in Montreal. He then came here and managed to get his dumb ass basically kicked off the team. I don’t imagine Beagle will go that badly, but if you think he’s going to show the kids his face off stats and they’ll start falling in line whenever he says jump, you’re out of your goddamn mind.

 

[drax0s]

Good contract. Hope to see Jake improve this year. Needs to be a big year for him.

 

[DL44]

So glad to see 2 yrs.


I would imagine taking a 1 yr $1 million contract would of been better for him to take tho.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think you might be falling for a fallacy here;


"Genetic"

You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.

I think they're more just trading insults and finding opportunities to mock each other rather than trying to exchange real arguments of any kind there, personally.

I don't think Y2KCanucks phrased his insult to pass itself off as an argument, and I'm not sure the original post was anything substantive enough to call for a reason-driven defense.

If anything, their "arguments" are being used to support their insults, not the other way around. I wouldn't liken that to an ad-hominem.

 

[tantalum]

Credit where credit is due this is a decent deal.

 

[pgj98m3]

Excellent deal again

“Again”????

 

[CherryToke]

Everyone gets a raise!

Except for me!