Dreger: Jake Virtanen Lots of interest

[elitepete]

Domi + Chicago’s 2020 2nd for Podkolzin + Virtanen + Sutter

Nope.

 

[lennor]

But seriously.

His post is ignorant.

Jake has some minor off ice issues.

He also posts very respectable numbers as a young physical middle-6 forward despite those issues. With the potential to grow.

If a fellow wants to have a respectful conversation about Jake’s pros and cons without stooping to cliché tropes that degrade a still-young-and-developing but productive player I’m all for it.

But, as a journeyman carpenter, I take any comment seriously that involves “bags of hammers” as a derogatory term.

Because bags of hammers (on the rare occasion you’re not using a pneumatic) can be very useful, hit hard, and are something everyone will need at some point.

he comes to camp out of shape every year and pre bubble.
he doesn’t play physical
He doesn’t drive play or plays well defensively
He went to a night club during COVID which wasn’t against the law but shows lack of judgement.
Has a great shot but rarely gets into position to use it.
When he drives the net he relies on his speed and finesse to make plays vs making a power move.
shows below average hockey iq
Doesn’t penalty kill
Looks gassed every other shift.

 

[BobClarkesfrontteeth]

he comes to camp out of shape every year and pre bubble.
he doesn’t play physical
He doesn’t drive play or plays well defensively
He went to a night club during COVID which wasn’t against the law but shows lack of judgement.
Has a great shot but rarely gets into position to use it.
When he drives the net he relies on his speed and finesse to make plays vs making a power move.
shows below average hockey iq
Doesn’t penalty kill
Looks gassed every other shift.

But look at the upside! He almost scored 20 goals this year. He should get you OEL straight up!
But in all seriousness. I really don't see any team giving up much for him alone when he is 8 days away from being not offered a QO.

 

[BWJM]

The more I think about it.. I’d trade Virtanen for a RHD. Get it done Benning.

 

[Cogburn]

A 1st round pick has a better chance of being not fat, drunk, and dumber then a bag of hammers than Virtanen does. You're basing his value on what he could be if he got his shit together. No one is paying a 1st for that hope.

You hope the pick isn't. Even an early pick isn't exactly guaranteed to be...well even a fat, drunk, dumb NHL player. You might end up with less.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

he comes to camp out of shape every year and pre bubble.
he doesn’t play physical
He doesn’t drive play or plays well defensively
He went to a night club during COVID which wasn’t against the law but shows lack of judgement.
Has a great shot but rarely gets into position to use it.
When he drives the net he relies on his speed and finesse to make plays vs making a power move.
shows below average hockey iq
Doesn’t penalty kill
Looks gassed every other shift.

Lmao someone is extremely uninformed and spewing made up garbage for the most part.
Virtanen absolutely plays physical and you are absolutely blind or haven't seen him play if you believe otherwise. "Gassed every other shift"? Wtf does that even mean? He doesn't drive play? Hmm i wonder why. Perhaps playing on a checking line with Brandon Sutter and Antoine Rousell or next to Jay Beagle and Tyler Motte might have something to do with that.
I like how you used him using his speed to drive to the net "instead of making a power move" a negative. Lmao he's not your prototypical power forward that's not his game and there is nothing wrong with that. He's average defensively not below average. He does have an excellent shot and if given better linemates maybe he would be in a better position to use it...
Not sure what your post was trying to do but it honestly showed that you haven't seen Jake Virtanen play.

 

[Cogburn]

The thing is if most of your comparables, so many things are different then it doesn't even make sense comparing them. Also you were looking at Virtanen career year and using selective stats for the other players. When the team traded 1st for Brassard, Zucker, Hayes, Statsny they average at least 50 points the last 2 seasons. That not comparable to Virtanen at all. Zucker we are not using his 64 point season because that was a career year and yet we are using Virtanen career year? It doesn't seem it is a fair argument you're using

Also if you have a lower cap hit base on your production and then your trade value increases. So if Virtanen keep his 0.5 points and gets 3 M. He is not an underpaid player anymore so therefore his value doesn't increase.

I looked at every 1st round trade since 2013. With the exception of cap dumps and swapping picks. Most 1st involve a legit top 6 F, top 4 D or number 1 goalie.

Kapanen and Harman are 2 legit examples I can give you. Coleman and Goodrow I can kind of give you as well however we both agree the low cap hit was a deciding factor on why they got a 1st round pick. Virtanen will get close to 3 M. That means he is not underpaid player therefore his value won't increase.

A few examples in a 8 year stretch is an outlier. If you're saying Virtanen is worth a 1st. You need to look at players that don't make more than 3 M and never scored more than 0.5 points in your argument. There not that many.

I want to look at most recent year before the trade. I don't consider that inconsistent, but comparing a 23 year old to someone in their 30s for number of years scoring at a consistent rate, well it's not a fair comparison either.

No, but a team could fit that .5 PPG for 3 million a lot easier then a 50 point player for 5/6/7, and that's more to my point, as Coleman and Goodrow were to yours earlier, at .9 and 1.8 million for 20-30 points.

And sorry, Hartman? Yeah, I didn't really even bring up that trade, but I'm glad we both didn't skip him.

Once again though, most of the top 6 players have gotten more then just a first straight across. None of Brassard, Zucker, Hayes, Statsny or Tatar (who I don't think I made a comparison to) were traded for a first round pick straight across. Everyone had another pick, or prospect, or player, attached, which is what I view as offsetting the difference in play. If I was asking for a first and second, or a first and bluechip prospect, then yes, all of these players (and Kane, and Pageau, and Hall, and Duchene, and O'Reilly, and Nash, and Schenn, and Kessel, and Lucic, and Kesler, and...) out class Virtanen. But a 1st isn't worth the package most of these guys got. Every one of them got a fair bit more.

Stepan, Eaves, Ladd, Hanzal, Vermette, Legwand and Perron are all players that were traded prior to the era I was looking at too, primarily for a 1st round pick. Some were undoubtedly top six, others definitely were not. I was initially only looking 3 years back. But even then, three of the most recent trades were Kapanen, Coleman and Goodrow for a first and a prospect. Even disregarding historic trends, which I don't wish to do, the recent trend is not a top six player getting a 1st, but someone coming from a bottom six role.

 

[lennor]

Lmao someone is extremely uninformed and spewing made up garbage for the most part.
Virtanen absolutely plays physical and you are absolutely blind or haven't seen him play if you believe otherwise. "Gassed every other shift"? Wtf does that even mean? He doesn't drive play? Hmm i wonder why. Perhaps playing on a checking line with Brandon Sutter and Antoine Rousell or next to Jay Beagle and Tyler Motte might have something to do with that.
I like how you used him using his speed to drive to the net "instead of making a power move" a negative. Lmao he's not your prototypical power forward that's not his game and there is nothing wrong with that. He's average defensively not below average. He does have an excellent shot and if given better linemates maybe he would be in a better position to use it...
Not sure what your post was trying to do but it honestly showed that you haven't seen Jake Virtanen play.

I’ve watched 95 percent of his career in it’s entirety. The playoffs tape speaks for the itself and proves my observations. He’s a defensive liability and a perimeter player with all the physical traits to be a 200 foot player. That’s what he’s shown. He shown he could score at the nhl level in one shortened season. Great. He had 2 all playoff. He is far from a complete hockey player. Don’t know the guy at all on a personal level but hasen’t shown maturity being out of shape for various camps. He should be 30/20 guy based on talent alone and junior productivity. But he’s beyond inconsistent. Majority of his goals came riding shotgun to petey and JT this year. This is my opinion. Don’t say I didn’t watch any games because you don’t agree with it.
Also having poor line mates isn’t an accuse to driving play. Bo played with Derek Dorsett and ronalds Kenins as a rookie and drove his line shift after shift.
Face it he’s a passenger when he should be an impact player.

 

[Canucks1096]

I want to look at most recent year before the trade. I don't consider that inconsistent, but comparing a 23 year old to someone in their 30s for number of years scoring at a consistent rate, well it's not a fair comparison either.

No, but a team could fit that .5 PPG for 3 million a lot easier then a 50 point player for 5/6/7, and that's more to my point, as Coleman and Goodrow were to yours earlier, at .9 and 1.8 million for 20-30 points.

And sorry, Hartman? Yeah, I didn't really even bring up that trade, but I'm glad we both didn't skip him.

Once again though, most of the top 6 players have gotten more then just a first straight across. None of Brassard, Zucker, Hayes, Statsny or Tatar (who I don't think I made a comparison to) were traded for a first round pick straight across. Everyone had another pick, or prospect, or player, attached, which is what I view as offsetting the difference in play. If I was asking for a first and second, or a first and bluechip prospect, then yes, all of these players (and Kane, and Pageau, and Hall, and Duchene, and O'Reilly, and Nash, and Schenn, and Kessel, and Lucic, and Kesler, and...) out class Virtanen. But a 1st isn't worth the package most of these guys got. Every one of them got a fair bit more.

Stepan, Eaves, Ladd, Hanzal, Vermette, Legwand and Perron are all players that were traded prior to the era I was looking at too, primarily for a 1st round pick. Some were undoubtedly top six, others definitely were not. I was initially only looking 3 years back. But even then, three of the most recent trades were Kapanen, Coleman and Goodrow for a first and a prospect. Even disregarding historic trends, which I don't wish to do, the recent trend is not a top six player getting a 1st, but someone coming from a bottom six role.

We are starting to go around circles. I will try to make it nice and simple.

When we first started this conversation you looked at the 3 year sample size for Brassard and a 1 year sample size on Zucker. Why?? Because you're making your argument a lot stronger. You can't look at 3 years of Zucker because it will bring down Virtanen. Your argument about the points it is a lot of cherry picking involved. About your comment about comparing an older player with lot of scoring years to a 23 year old is not fair. Doesn't matter if it is fair or not, if you have a better resume that means you have better trade value.

Regardless of the salary. A 5 million legit top 6 forward is going to have a higher value than a middle 6 0.5 ppg player making 3 M. I am not sure if you think that. But if you, that is not even debatable

Your argument about those players went for a 1st and prospect and therefore Virtanen is worth a 1st. That is a 100% flawed argument. If a gm is willing to pay a 1st and a prospect for a top 6 forward. It doesn't mean GM is willing to pay a 1st a middle 6/3rd Line player.

I am not quite sure what else to say. The evidences is right there. The evidences show not many players that are similar to Virtanen or worst got 1st round pick.

I will give you Hartman and Kapanen. I can accept Goodrow even a 3rd round pick was traded as well and Coleman even the only reasons why both 1st round pick because they were underpaid. 4 examples out so many years so it not the norm, it's outlier. It's way too small of sample size for you say it is trend. The same GM made two of those trades. So Hartmans Kapanen coleman Goodrow. Last 3 years only 3 GM made those type of trades.

If you can't provide more examples, a 3 M or less player that never had more than 0.5 ppg that went for a 1st. That means it's not the norm, it's an outlier. All the other examples you're giving me are just so way off. You need find more similar examples to prove your point.

To say a player has x amount value. You need to compare around the same type of player or lesser player to prove your point. Right now you're not doing much of that.

Can you provide more examples when a player that never had more than 0.5 ppg and makes less than 3 M that went for a 1st?

 

[Hookslide]

Rask , DeBrusk, Ritchie 5th round pick

For

Boeser
Virtanen
Demko
Gaudette

DONE

 

[Teflon Jim]

DONE

Rask quit on his team when they needed him the most so no rask period.

 

[Hookslide]

Rask quit on his team when they needed him the most so no rask period.

HAHA ..... I get it ,but I did not put it there

 

[Canadian Canuck]

I’ve watched 95 percent of his career in it’s entirety. The playoffs tape speaks for the itself and proves my observations. He’s a defensive liability and a perimeter player with all the physical traits to be a 200 foot player. That’s what he’s shown. He shown he could score at the nhl level in one shortened season. Great. He had 2 all playoff. He is far from a complete hockey player. Don’t know the guy at all on a personal level but hasen’t shown maturity being out of shape for various camps. He should be 30/20 guy based on talent alone and junior productivity. But he’s beyond inconsistent. Majority of his goals came riding shotgun to petey and JT this year. This is my opinion. Don’t say I didn’t watch any games because you don’t agree with it.
Also having poor line mates isn’t an accuse to driving play. Bo played with Derek Dorsett and ronalds Kenins as a rookie and drove his line shift after shift.
Face it he’s a passenger when he should be an impact player.

Why does he have to be a play driving winger?? He’s an excellent fast physical winger that’s capable of scoring 20-25 goals a year. That’s extremely valuable.

 

[Szechwan]

Jake is a weird player. Effective as an individual but does absolutely nothing to help his teammates.

He's essentially Athanasiou.

I've generally endorsed keeping him and letting him find his way, but after seeing his disinterest in the playoffs when we needed him to show up - I'm fine with moving him out East if the return is solid.

I think he'll put it together at the some point, but Vancouver is too distracting for him.

 

[Canucks LB]

 

[Cogburn]

We are starting to go around circles. I will try to make it nice and simple.

When we first started this conversation you looked at the 3 year sample size for Brassard and a 1 year sample size on Zucker. Why?? Because you're making your argument a lot stronger. You can't look at 3 years of Zucker because it will bring down Virtanen. Your argument about the points it is a lot of cherry picking involved. About your comment about comparing an older player with lot of scoring years to a 23 year old is not fair. Doesn't matter if it is fair or not, if you have a better resume that means you have better trade value.

Regardless of the salary. A 5 million legit top 6 forward is going to have a higher value than a middle 6 0.5 ppg player making 3 M. I am not sure if you think that. But if you, that is not even debatable

Your argument about those players went for a 1st and prospect and therefore Virtanen is worth a 1st. That is a 100% flawed argument. If a gm is willing to pay a 1st and a prospect for a top 6 forward. It doesn't mean GM is willing to pay a 1st a middle 6/3rd Line player.

I am not quite sure what else to say. The evidences is right there. The evidences show not many players that are similar to Virtanen or worst got 1st round pick.

I will give you Hartman and Kapanen. I can accept Goodrow even a 3rd round pick was traded as well and Coleman even the only reasons why both 1st round pick because they were underpaid. 4 examples out so many years so it not the norm, it's outlier. It's way too small of sample size for you say it is trend. The same GM made two of those trades. So Hartmans Kapanen coleman Goodrow. Last 3 years only 3 GM made those type of trades.

If you can't provide more examples, a 3 M or less player that never had more than 0.5 ppg that went for a 1st. That means it's not the norm, it's an outlier. All the other examples you're giving me are just so way off. You need find more similar examples to prove your point.

To say a player has x amount value. You need to compare around the same type of player or lesser player to prove your point. Right now you're not doing much of that.

Can you provide more examples when a player that never had more than 0.5 ppg and makes less than 3 M that went for a 1st?

So go back 3 years on Zucker. He's been a consistent 20 goal scorer, and I've acknowledged his 30 goal season. If we go back three years, yes, it looks Virtanen look a lot worse, as he was freshly called up from most a year in the AHL at that point.

And we are ignoring the fact all of the top 6 players got more then a first. So even if Virtanen gets a first....those players are worth more then Virtanen. I feel this is being ignored when you are arguing Virtanen is not worth the same as these players. He's not, he's worth less then they are, and the return of a first would show that. Saying I'm arguing Virtanen is worth the same as Zucker or any other player is incorrect, I am saying a chunk of their return is what Virtanen is worth.

A third liner with 1 20 goal season is worth less that a first, but another 20 goal (and significantly lower assist total) is, and the difference is pay. But a 25 goal scorer making nearly double the amount the 20 goal scorer is worth a first round pick. I'm not seeing your logic here. If we resign Virtanen and retain some salary is he worth the same as Coleman then (a first and a prospect akin to Foote)? Or are the 12 goals (the difference between Zucker's best season and the prorated amount from Virtanen this year) worth 2.5 million a season?

You're asking for more evidence...we've got 4 that even you are calling similar, but another is Eaves, his single year being a little better then Virtanens, but with several years of single digit point and goal totals I think it works out. We're up to 5 in 3 years. While not a plurality or majority, that is still statistically significant.

And going back a few steps to where I brought up that list of comparable last year, and we agreed to cut off the top four defensemen...Montour was just offered up for Virtanen, In this thread. So someone else thinks Virtanen is worth the previous investment of Guhle and a late first (almost a second really, but still a first).

 

[Canucks1096]

So go back 3 years on Zucker. He's been a consistent 20 goal scorer, and I've acknowledged his 30 goal season. If we go back three years, yes, it looks Virtanen look a lot worse, as he was freshly called up from most a year in the AHL at that point.

And we are ignoring the fact all of the top 6 players got more then a first. So even if Virtanen gets a first....those players are worth more then Virtanen. I feel this is being ignored when you are arguing Virtanen is not worth the same as these players. He's not, he's worth less then they are, and the return of a first would show that. Saying I'm arguing Virtanen is worth the same as Zucker or any other player is incorrect, I am saying a chunk of their return is what Virtanen is worth.

A third liner with 1 20 goal season is worth less that a first, but another 20 goal (and significantly lower assist total) is, and the difference is pay. But a 25 goal scorer making nearly double the amount the 20 goal scorer is worth a first round pick. I'm not seeing your logic here. If we resign Virtanen and retain some salary is he worth the same as Coleman then (a first and a prospect akin to Foote)? Or are the 12 goals (the difference between Zucker's best season and the prorated amount from Virtanen this year) worth 2.5 million a season?

You're asking for more evidence...we've got 4 that even you are calling similar, but another is Eaves, his single year being a little better then Virtanens, but with several years of single digit point and goal totals I think it works out. We're up to 5 in 3 years. While not a plurality or majority, that is still statistically significant.

And going back a few steps to where I brought up that list of comparable last year, and we agreed to cut off the top four defensemen...Montour was just offered up for Virtanen, In this thread. So someone else thinks Virtanen is worth the previous investment of Guhle and a late first (almost a second really, but still a first).

I went back and checked all the 1st round trades the last 5 years since jan 1 2015. I excluded the cap dump trades and the swap picks trades. There around 45 trades in total. Most of them included a number 1 goalie, a top 4 D or legit top 6 forward. Eaves Hartman Coleman Kapanen Goodrow. There was Reeves in there however he got traded with a 2nd for a late 1st. Considering 2 seconds is worth a late 1st. That mean he was equal to a second round pick. 5 trades in the last 5 years out of 44 trades it is definitely the outlier and not the norm. No more than middle 6 forward don't usually get 1st round pick

Correction I never said I would ignore top 4 D trade. I think we can both agree legit top 4 D are worth more than middle 6 forward. If we ignore it help your argument and bring down my argument. To be fair since we are talking about 1st round pick trade and what there value is. We should look at those trades as well.

Back to your argument so you're telling me x player got a 1st round pick and prospect so Virtanen is a little bit below that player and he should get a 1st. If you think there should be more middle 6 players getting 1st round pick. If this is true, how come there not more middle 6 players getting 1st round picks?

Your logic should work on D as well. Some of those trades a top 4 D got a 1st and plus as well. With your logic number 5 D that can play on the top 4 at times is worth a 1st as well? ( middle 6 F and number 5 D that can play at number 4 at times are worth around the same) we never see a number 5 D get traded for a 1st round pick.

Do you now see your argument doesn't make much sense?

 

[Cogburn]

I went back and checked all the 1st round trades the last 5 years since jan 1 2015. I excluded the cap dump trades and the swap picks trades. There around 45 trades in total. Most of them included a number 1 goalie, a top 4 D or legit top 6 forward. Eaves Hartman Coleman Kapanen Goodrow. There was Reeves in there however he got traded with a 2nd for a late 1st. Considering 2 seconds is worth a late 1st. That mean he was equal to a second round pick. 5 trades in the last 5 years out of 44 trades it is definitely the outlier and not the norm. No more than middle 6 forward don't usually get 1st round pick

Correction I never said I would ignore top 4 D trade. I think we can both agree legit top 4 D are worth more than middle 6 forward. If we ignore it help your argument and bring down my argument. To be fair since we are talking about 1st round pick trade and what there value is. We should look at those trades as well.

Back to your argument so you're telling me x player got a 1st round pick and prospect so Virtanen is a little bit below that player and he should get a 1st. If you think there should be more middle 6 players getting 1st round pick. If this is true, how come there not more middle 6 players getting 1st round picks?

Your logic should work on D as well. Some of those trades a top 4 D got a 1st and plus as well. With your logic number 5 D that can play on the top 4 at times is worth a 1st as well? ( middle 6 F and number 5 D that can play at number 4 at times are worth around the same) we never see a number 5 D get traded for a 1st round pick.

Do you now see your argument doesn't make much sense?

Statistically speaking, 5 out of 44 is still significant. However, how many of those 44 trades were just for a 1st round pick for one top goalie/top four D/top six forward? Skjei is the only recent trade, Schneider before that, Brouwer, Rundblad...and all the sudden I'm back in 2010. Every other trade of a 1st round pick for a player has included a prospect, another pick, or a player, or a combination there of. I am not as familiar with Skjei as the other trades, but Schneider was a forced trade (we have another likely coming for the same reasons), and Brouwer was a cap casualty (although seems to draw many, many, many parallels to Virtanen concerning point production). Rundblad was a highly touted prospect, but hadn't played a game yet if memory serves.

I do agree with that statement, yes, if it's an "average" top four D versus an "average" top six forward. Once again though, Skjei was the only top four D has been traded straight across for a (conditional) first round pick in the last ten years. I would argue he is somewhat overpaid, but I haven't followed his career closely since his career (so far) year, and his subsequent big contract signing. His point total went from 39 to 25, 25, and 24 in a prorated season, and I thought he had a reputation as an offense first D.

I am saying player X getting a 1st, a 2nd or 3rd or prospect, and maybe something else, could (and to me does) translate into Virtanen getting a 1st, being below the stats of player X, yes. You're twisting this, or deliberately misunderstanding what I've typed, but to be crystal clear, if several payments for a player getting (25 goals, 55 points, what ever stats we're using averaged out) level of stats, then Virtanen getting slightly below that (18 goals, 18 assists in a shortened season) means a proportional return is appropriate. It's not as clinical as using a first and second (two seconds to a first, according to your conversion) as a return for a player getting 60 points means a player with 40 point instantly gets two seconds or a first, but I am not saying that "Zucker got a first so Virtanen will get a first" either. Zucker got Galchenyuk (an overpaid but still possibly useful scorer) and Addison (a promising looking RD prospect) with their first. Total value there greatly exceeds a 2nd round pick here, but not taking a replacement scorer and a prospect from a team would offset some of the point production.

It depends on the 5 D. I would trade a 1st for Scott Mayfield, for example, as he pinched in to a top four role, plays a safe game, is physical and most importantly makes significantly less then many others in his role. Would I expect the same return for Stecher, whose QO is north of 2.7? Of course not. Much like my belief that a young, RFA, scoring winger with size and speed should get a first, but another 3rd line winger (making the same proposed amount) that is older, or less effective, or less productive, would be laughable (Virtanen versus Roussel).

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself properly, but my logic is sound to me. You're trying to convince me otherwise, I've kept an open mind to it...but I'm not seeing any evidence presented that has changed my mind.

 

[Hookslide]

Statistically speaking, 5 out of 44 is still significant. However, how many of those 44 trades were just for a 1st round pick for one top goalie/top four D/top six forward? Skjei is the only recent trade, Schneider before that, Brouwer, Rundblad...and all the sudden I'm back in 2010. Every other trade of a 1st round pick for a player has included a prospect, another pick, or a player, or a combination there of. I am not as familiar with Skjei as the other trades, but Schneider was a forced trade (we have another likely coming for the same reasons), and Brouwer was a cap casualty (although seems to draw many, many, many parallels to Virtanen concerning point production). Rundblad was a highly touted prospect, but hadn't played a game yet if memory serves.

I do agree with that statement, yes, if it's an "average" top four D versus an "average" top six forward. Once again though, Skjei was the only top four D has been traded straight across for a (conditional) first round pick in the last ten years. I would argue he is somewhat overpaid, but I haven't followed his career closely since his career (so far) year, and his subsequent big contract signing. His point total went from 39 to 25, 25, and 24 in a prorated season, and I thought he had a reputation as an offense first D.

I am saying player X getting a 1st, a 2nd or 3rd or prospect, and maybe something else, could (and to me does) translate into Virtanen getting a 1st, being below the stats of player X, yes. You're twisting this, or deliberately misunderstanding what I've typed, but to be crystal clear, if several payments for a player getting (25 goals, 55 points, what ever stats we're using averaged out) level of stats, then Virtanen getting slightly below that (18 goals, 18 assists in a shortened season) means a proportional return is appropriate. It's not as clinical as using a first and second (two seconds to a first, according to your conversion) as a return for a player getting 60 points means a player with 40 point instantly gets two seconds or a first, but I am not saying that "Zucker got a first so Virtanen will get a first" either. Zucker got Galchenyuk (an overpaid but still possibly useful scorer) and Addison (a promising looking RD prospect) with their first. Total value there greatly exceeds a 2nd round pick here, but not taking a replacement scorer and a prospect from a team would offset some of the point production.

It depends on the 5 D. I would trade a 1st for Scott Mayfield, for example, as he pinched in to a top four role, plays a safe game, is physical and most importantly makes significantly less then many others in his role. Would I expect the same return for Stecher, whose QO is north of 2.7? Of course not. Much like my belief that a young, RFA, scoring winger with size and speed should get a first, but another 3rd line winger (making the same proposed amount) that is older, or less effective, or less productive, would be laughable (Virtanen versus Roussel).

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself properly, but my logic is sound to me. You're trying to convince me otherwise, I've kept an open mind to it...but I'm not seeing any evidence presented that has changed my mind.

Jesus I could have read "War and Peace" quicker than that post.........

 

[Cogburn]

Jesus I could have read "War and Peace" quicker than that post.........

The posts get longer as the discussion gets longer.

I think this started with something along the lines of my stating Virtanen should get a first and maybe a prospect.

 

[Hookslide]

Not meaning to be insulting, but you get what I mean.......

 

[Cogburn]

Not meaning to be insulting, but you get what I mean.......

No, no, I hear you. Nothing personal was taken from the comment.

 

[Canucks1096]

Statistically speaking, 5 out of 44 is still significant. However, how many of those 44 trades were just for a 1st round pick for one top goalie/top four D/top six forward? Skjei is the only recent trade, Schneider before that, Brouwer, Rundblad...and all the sudden I'm back in 2010. Every other trade of a 1st round pick for a player has included a prospect, another pick, or a player, or a combination there of. I am not as familiar with Skjei as the other trades, but Schneider was a forced trade (we have another likely coming for the same reasons), and Brouwer was a cap casualty (although seems to draw many, many, many parallels to Virtanen concerning point production). Rundblad was a highly touted prospect, but hadn't played a game yet if memory serves.

I do agree with that statement, yes, if it's an "average" top four D versus an "average" top six forward. Once again though, Skjei was the only top four D has been traded straight across for a (conditional) first round pick in the last ten years. I would argue he is somewhat overpaid, but I haven't followed his career closely since his career (so far) year, and his subsequent big contract signing. His point total went from 39 to 25, 25, and 24 in a prorated season, and I thought he had a reputation as an offense first D.

I am saying player X getting a 1st, a 2nd or 3rd or prospect, and maybe something else, could (and to me does) translate into Virtanen getting a 1st, being below the stats of player X, yes. You're twisting this, or deliberately misunderstanding what I've typed, but to be crystal clear, if several payments for a player getting (25 goals, 55 points, what ever stats we're using averaged out) level of stats, then Virtanen getting slightly below that (18 goals, 18 assists in a shortened season) means a proportional return is appropriate. It's not as clinical as using a first and second (two seconds to a first, according to your conversion) as a return for a player getting 60 points means a player with 40 point instantly gets two seconds or a first, but I am not saying that "Zucker got a first so Virtanen will get a first" either. Zucker got Galchenyuk (an overpaid but still possibly useful scorer) and Addison (a promising looking RD prospect) with their first. Total value there greatly exceeds a 2nd round pick here, but not taking a replacement scorer and a prospect from a team would offset some of the point production.

It depends on the 5 D. I would trade a 1st for Scott Mayfield, for example, as he pinched in to a top four role, plays a safe game, is physical and most importantly makes significantly less then many others in his role. Would I expect the same return for Stecher, whose QO is north of 2.7? Of course not. Much like my belief that a young, RFA, scoring winger with size and speed should get a first, but another 3rd line winger (making the same proposed amount) that is older, or less effective, or less productive, would be laughable (Virtanen versus Roussel).

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself properly, but my logic is sound to me. You're trying to convince me otherwise, I've kept an open mind to it...but I'm not seeing any evidence presented that has changed my mind.

If you think 5 out of 44 is significant, I think we should end this conversation. That is 11%. 11% of time when a trade involes a 1st round pick that doesn't involve a top 6/top 4 D/ number 1 goalie.

You keep saying this over and over again. Once again if a top 6 F or top 4 D got a 1st and other small parts and you're saying Virtanen should be worth a 1st.

Then you need to provide more examples to confirm your argument is legit? Which you're not able too, if what you're saying is true, there should be a lot more middle 6 forward and number 5 D going for 1st round pick but there not. That mean what you're saying is not true.

Okay sure your believe that Virtanen is big and fast and he just get a 1st. That is your personal opinion but you don't have any legit to prove it. Your argument looks sound it doesnt mean it sound. You need more facts to back that up.

 

[Cogburn]

If you think 5 out of 44 is significant, I think we should end this conversation. That is 11%. 11% of time when a trade involes a 1st round pick that doesn't involve a top 6/top 4 D/ number 1 goalie.

You keep saying this over and over again. Once again if a top 6 F or top 4 D got a 1st and other small parts and you're saying Virtanen should be worth a 1st.

Then you need to provide more examples to confirm your argument is legit? Which you're not able too, if what you're saying is true, there should be a lot more middle 6 forward and number 5 D going for 1st round pick but there not. That mean what you're saying is not true.

Okay sure your believe that Virtanen is big and fast and he just get a 1st. That is your personal opinion but you don't have any legit to prove it. Your argument looks sound it doesnt mean it sound. You need more facts to back that up.

Would you not buy a lottery ticket if you had an 11% chance of winning? Would you not actively avoid something with an 11% mortality rate? I said it was statistically significant, that simply means more then the margin of error, and enough to show that it isn't simply a chance occurrence. 11% is much better then that.

I also think a team acquiring Virtanen would be doing so to get a potential top six forward, not a bottom six grinder, but yes. I feel I've been clear about this. If a first, and a combination of picks and prospects gets you a top six forward, then a lesser package would get you a lesser player.

How many do you want? I've provided a new case every time you've asked. Give me 5 instances of a 25 or under 20 goal scorer went for a second or third round pick then. I've got Setoguchi, Cogliano (18 in 82 twice, close enough), both in 2013, and Boyes, in 2007. That's three 20 goal scoring forwards, 25 or under, that have gotten a 2nd round pick in the last 10 years, none recently.

I've provided plenty of evidence, I feel just fine during this discussion, and honestly, I've supplied enough notes. What evidence have you provided though? I've explained my logic behind players (who I've said are better assets) getting more value, proportionately, and you've attempted to discredit it solely based on better players getting a first included in the packages they've returned. Have you got any evidence to provide to say Virtanen will not get a first? Or is it simply that first round picks have been included in packages for better players, more times?

Edit: I also found this post in the Virtanen to LA thread:

Not that high on Roy. How about 35th and 97th pick this year instead?

If Oel gets traded to the Canucks. They need to get some picks back.

An early second round pick and a fourth round pick. To move up 3-5 spots usually, depending on how early we're talking, seems to be between a later second and a third round pick. Are you really putting up this kind of argument over a round and a half of a middle round draft pick?

 

[FreeMcdavid]

GMs will drool and covet a player like Virtanen more than fans. Having excellent physical tools and abilities is never a deprciating asset in the NHL.

Apparent Canucks want a hockey trade.

I suspect that means they want a young Dman for him who is already an NHL regular and contributing, young , but perhaps stuck in a 4-5-6 D role. any thought of any player this description may fall under?

Ironically, another hometown boy popped into my head.

Dennis Cholowski - 22 yrs old , up and Down AHL and NHL

others: Jake Bean, Jakub Zboril