Dreger: Jake Virtanen Lots of interest

[Cogburn]

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

Some where back before I helped hijack this thread, a Buffalo fan said Montour. While more expensive then some of who you've listed, I think he would be a better fit, even if he isn't the defensive stalwart we all want on the right side.

 

[Canucks1096]

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?

I think it's time to stop the argument since we are going around circles and seem we both speak different languages.

It depends how much you paying for the 11% chance of the lottery ticket. A few dollars, yes I will buy it, a few hundred dollars. Probably not.

I am giving you evidences 89% of 1st round picks traded in the last 5 years involved a top 6 F/ top 4 D/number 1 goalie. That proves that bottom 6 to middle 6 forward are not worth a 1st round pick

Now you're coming back with those player got more. If you take out the prospect and then Virtanen is worth a 1st. Then I come back with if Virtanen was worth a 1st. Then how there come there not more trades that involve 1st round pick with middle 6 forwards. Then we start to go around circles

Maybe Virtanen is not worth a 2nd and 3rd. I might be wrong on that but I am not wrong on saying Virtanen is being worth a 1st because you don't have much of am argument aside from that 11%.

No matter how you try to spin this. 11% is a small sample and you can't used that as an argument.

The evidences is just right there that you're wrong but you should refuse to accept it.

Btw you saying Virtanen is worth a 1st because of his size and speed and because team might see him as a top 6 forward. That is just your personal opinion. Personal opinion should not be used an argument.

If GM were willing to pay 1st round pick for Middle 6 forward. There will more trades like that but there not. That means middle 6 forward are not worth 1st round pick.

Have a great day or night.

 

[David71]

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

we need a RHD. if nucks get OEL and a right D from another deal that would be good. and maybe sign one more for insurance.

 

[Cogburn]

I think it's time to stop the argument since we are going around circles and seem we both speak different languages.

It depends how much you paying for the 11% chance of the lottery ticket. A few dollars, yes I will buy it, a few hundred dollars. Probably not.

I am giving you evidences 89% of 1st round picks traded in the last 5 years involved a top 6 F/ top 4 D/number 1 goalie. That proves that bottom 6 to middle 6 forward are not worth a 1st round pick

Now you're coming back with those player got more. If you take out the prospect and then Virtanen is worth a 1st. Then I come back with if Virtanen was worth a 1st. Then how there come there not more trades that involve 1st round pick with middle 6 forwards. Then we start to go around circles

Maybe Virtanen is not worth a 2nd and 3rd. I might be wrong on that but I am not wrong on saying Virtanen is being worth a 1st because you don't have much of am argument aside from that 11%.

No matter how you try to spin this. 11% is a small sample and you can't used that as an argument.

The evidences is just right there that you're wrong but you should refuse to accept it.

Btw you saying Virtanen is worth a 1st because of his size and speed and because team might see him as a top 6 forward. That is just your personal opinion. Personal opinion should not be used an argument.

If GM were willing to pay 1st round pick for Middle 6 forward. There will more trades like that but there not. That means middle 6 forward are not worth 1st round pick.

Have a great day or night.

89% included a 1st round pick, not necessarily even as the primary piece involved. Once again, including anything else, and it is a higher return.

That is what I am saying, yes, Virtanen, alone, is worth a first round pick, alone. Not what Hall got. Not what Kessel got. Not what what Tatar or Pageau got.

Seeing him as a potential six is my opinion, yes. He put up top six numbers, and I have nothing of substance to say he would be a top six player anywhere else, but a team returning a first round pick or equivalent would have to be looking for a top six player, otherwise there are cheaper 3rd line right wingers out there. That's the closest I have to evidence on Virtanen being a top six forward elsewhere, short of his stats last year. That is pretty thin, yes.

And right back at you.

 

[Hostile Offer]

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

Cale Fleury or Noah Juulsen? Bottom pairing but I don't think anyone is going to trade you a young top 4 RHD for Virtanen. Habs might have to add a sweetener of sorts here.

 

[Cogburn]

Cale Fleury or Noah Juulsen? Bottom pairing but I don't think anyone is going to trade you a young top 4 RHD for Virtanen. Habs might have to add a sweetener of sorts here.

I'd pass, I think we can find better.

Montour's been offered, and I'm clinging to that offer, and worse case scenario, we can add for a better player.

 

[Canucks1096]

89% included a 1st round pick, not necessarily even as the primary piece involved. Once again, including anything else, and it is a higher return.

That is what I am saying, yes, Virtanen, alone, is worth a first round pick, alone. Not what Hall got. Not what Kessel got. Not what what Tatar or Pageau got.

Seeing him as a potential six is my opinion, yes. He put up top six numbers, and I have nothing of substance to say he would be a top six player anywhere else, but a team returning a first round pick or equivalent would have to be looking for a top six player, otherwise there are cheaper 3rd line right wingers out there. That's the closest I have to evidence on Virtanen being a top six forward elsewhere, short of his stats last year. That is pretty thin, yes.

And right back at you.

Once again if Virtanen was worth a first round. There will be more trades that involves a middle 6 forward traded for a 1st round pick but there not. There has beem about 5 on the last 6 years. This part you keep ignoring. If Virtanen is worth just the 1st in those Hall Kessel trades. Then you need provide more examples of a player that are similar that got a 1st round pick in trade. Which you're not able to do

 

[Hostile Offer]

I'd pass, I think we can find better.

Montour's been offered, and I'm clinging to that offer, and worse case scenario, we can add for a better player.

The main idea here for me was that Fleury/Juulsen are easy pickups from a cap perspective while Montour is costing at least $3.4M to keep around and has arb rights to boot.

 

[Cogburn]

Once again if Virtanen was worth a first round. There will be more trades that involves a middle 6 forward traded for a 1st round pick but there not. There has beem about 5 on the last 6 years. This part you keep ignoring. If Virtanen is worth just the 1st in those Hall Kessel trades. Then you need provide more examples of a player that are similar that got a 1st round pick in trade. Which you're not able to do

That's still 5. It's not common place, but if we're pointing out important elements of the others arguments, none of the better forwards have gone for just a 1st straight across. Even the "on par" players we more or less agree on got more. 5 is a fine number of examples if no more examples of a lesser return can be provided. I have 3 for a second round pick. I'd even accept better forwards that returned nothing but a first versus the 5 on par players for a first (+). You're not using consistent standards across the two sides here.

 

[Cogburn]

The main idea here for me was that Fleury/Juulsen are easy pickups from a cap perspective while Montour is costing at least $3.4M to keep around and has arb rights to boot.

They'd be cheaper, sure, but we have a few guys (Rafferty, Woo) on the right side on ELCs that could be worth exploring before giving up Virtanen. We need an improvement over Stecher or Tanev if we're exploring an outside player, or at least a comparable player to Stecher if we're to replace him with someone cheaper. Montour could be viewed as a cheaper alternative to Tanev, or as a slightly more expensive improvement to Stecher, for example.

The update a few posts up said Benning would looking for a hockey trade too, so it wouldn't be a cap dump situation per se, and I interpret a hockey trade as closer to a one-for-one trade rather then a lesser player and a sweetener.

 

[Troygambletheforgot]

I could see Ottawa being interested. What’s the cost to acquire him?

2 2nd rounders