Player Discussion Jake Virtanen, Pt. XXI

[Motte and Bailey]

It’s cause there’s hope for Goldobin and Virtanen. I want both of those players to succeed and reach their ceilings so it’s dissapointing when they struggle (offensively or otherwise). I mean we all know Granlund, Schaller, Eriksson, and Motte are brutal while Beagle, Sutter and Roussel and useful but limited players. To me they’re all just placeholders and won’t be significant contributors in a Canucks team going anywhere. Virtanen and Goldobin could be. That’s at least why I am more critical of those players during their cold streaks.

Granlund, Schiller, Erickson, Motte, Beagle, Sutter, Rousseau are placeholders in the sense that in a perfect world you like to have someone a bit faster, a bit more skilled, and a bit cheaper in those holes but in reality a lot of those guys would absolutely be solid contributors on any cup contender. Ontop of that every single one of them plays the right way, brings an incredible work ethic, and is a character guy. That helps to build a collective atmospheric culture that survives past their retirement and that’s extremely valuable.

 

[RobertKron]

Yeah, Eriksson has been running through walls for this team, game-in, game-out. Also his pedigree as a former Hobey Baker winner is irreplaceable.

 

[PG Canuck]

Granlund, Schiller, Erickson, Motte, Beagle, Sutter, Rousseau are placeholders in the sense that in a perfect world you like to have someone a bit faster, a bit more skilled, and a bit cheaper in those holes but in reality a lot of those guys would absolutely be solid contributors on any cup contender. Ontop of that every single one of them plays the right way, brings an incredible work ethic, and is a character guy. That helps to build a collective atmospheric culture that survives past their retirement and that’s extremely valuable.

Wrong.

 

[Peter10]

Granlund, Schiller, Erickson, Motte, Beagle, Sutter, Rousseau are placeholders in the sense that in a perfect world you like to have someone a bit faster, a bit more skilled, and a bit cheaper in those holes but in reality a lot of those guys would absolutely be solid contributors on any cup contender. Ontop of that every single one of them plays the right way, brings an incredible work ethic, and is a character guy. That helps to build a collective atmospheric culture that survives past their retirement and that’s extremely valuable.

Jeez, you even misspelled 50% of the player names.

 

[Askel]

Granlund, Schiller, Erickson, Motte, Beagle, Sutter, Rousseau are placeholders in the sense that in a perfect world you like to have someone a bit faster, a bit more skilled, and a bit cheaper in those holes but in reality a lot of those guys would absolutely be solid contributors on any cup contender. Ontop of that every single one of them plays the right way, brings an incredible work ethic, and is a character guy. That helps to build a collective atmospheric culture that survives past their retirement and that’s extremely valuable.

What a pile of BS.

 

[TheOtherGM]

What a pile of BS.

What part?
Is there really a big difference between Roussel and Maxim Lapierre, who was an interesting piece on the 2011 team?

Also just listened to the latest 31 Thoughts podcast where they interviewed Beagle.
He comes across as a very likeable guy and I can see him being a valuable person to have in a locker room. Doesn't mean I think he was worth the contract, but having the right people in your room counts for something.

 

[Cupless44]

Granlund, Schiller, Erickson, Motte, Beagle, Sutter, Rousseau are placeholders in the sense that in a perfect world you like to have someone a bit faster, a bit more skilled, and a bit cheaper in those holes but in reality a lot of those guys would absolutely be solid contributors on any cup contender. Ontop of that every single one of them plays the right way, brings an incredible work ethic, and is a character guy. That helps to build a collective atmospheric culture that survives past their retirement and that’s extremely valuable.

This is sarcasm right?

 

[Pip]

What part?
Is there really a big difference between Roussel and Maxim Lapierre, who was an interesting piece on the 2011 team?

Salary

 

[TheOtherGM]

Salary

Is that true though when you adjust for salary inflation?

edit: I suppose it is. According to capfriendly.com/players/maxim-lapierre it looks like he was making $1,000,000 per season back then and of course Roussel makes $3,800,000 now.
So you're absolutely right about the dollars.
Purely from a hockey playing viewpoint though, just saying, some of the players in that list would actually be contributing players for a Stanley Cup team.
Roussel and Beagle mostly. I could see Sutter being interesting to a contender. Even Motte. Maybe.
Problem of course is they're on the Canucks at the wrong point in the team's cycle, but that doesn't mean they're garbage players.

 

[Askel]

What part?
Is there really a big difference between Roussel and Maxim Lapierre, who was an interesting piece on the 2011 team?

Also just listened to the latest 31 Thoughts podcast where they interviewed Beagle.
He comes across as a very likeable guy and I can see him being a valuable person to have in a locker room. Doesn't mean I think he was worth the contract, but having the right people in your room counts for something.

Lapierre could play center and was paid 900k,that's the difference.

 

[TheOtherGM]

Lapierre could play center and was paid 900k,that's the difference.

Fair enough. Doesn't change my overall thought that Roussel would be an interesting player to have on a playoff bound Cup contender.

 

[Askel]

Fair enough. Doesn't change my overall thought that Roussel would be an interesting player to have on a playoff bound Cup contender.

I have no trouble with Roussel the player, just his salary

 

[I am toxic]

It’s cause there’s hope for Goldobin and Virtanen. I want both of those players to succeed and reach their ceilings so it’s dissapointing when they struggle (offensively or otherwise). I mean we all know Granlund, Schaller, Eriksson, and Motte are brutal while Beagle, Sutter and Roussel and useful but limited players. To me they’re all just placeholders and won’t be significant contributors in a Canucks team going anywhere. Virtanen and Goldobin could be. That’s at least why I am more critical of those players during their cold streaks.

We are always hardest on those we love the most . . .

 

[Pip]

Is that true though when you adjust for salary inflation?

edit: I suppose it is. According to capfriendly.com/players/maxim-lapierre it looks like he was making $1,000,000 per season back then and of course Roussel makes $3,800,000 now.
So you're absolutely right about the dollars.
Purely from a hockey playing viewpoint though, just saying, some of the players in that list would actually be contributing players for a Stanley Cup team.
Roussel and Beagle mostly. I could see Sutter being interesting to a contender. Even Motte. Maybe.
Problem of course is they're on the Canucks at the wrong point in the team's cycle, but that doesn't mean they're garbage players.

Well to me if you’re a bottom of the roster player you need to be inexpensive or you need to be a legitimate top 6 player who is buried behind insane depth. Overpaying on a few bottom 6 players, even if they’re effective in their roles, is preventing you from upgrading the top of your roster when you’re competing. To me an overpaid bottom 6 player is a waste no matter what.

 

[RobertKron]

Fair enough. Doesn't change my overall thought that Roussel would be an interesting player to have on a playoff bound Cup contender.

Like in a world where there's no cap? Teams where the season actually matters usually have to be more disciplined with their money than a team like the Canucks..

 

[LordBacon]

I will stick to my prediction that jake will score around 25 points, his play and awareness away from the puck are pretty obvious. I’m a big believer that good defence leads to good offense, if he keeps playing the way he has been then I believe he might just get himself another hot streak going and score a couple more, one way or another I think majority of the people here are pleased with his improvements this year.

 

[M2Beezy]

Is that true though when you adjust for salary inflation?

edit: I suppose it is. According to capfriendly.com/players/maxim-lapierre it looks like he was making $1,000,000 per season back then and of course Roussel makes $3,800,000 now.
So you're absolutely right about the dollars.
Purely from a hockey playing viewpoint though, just saying, some of the players in that list would actually be contributing players for a Stanley Cup team.
Roussel and Beagle mostly. I could see Sutter being interesting to a contender. Even Motte. Maybe.
Problem of course is they're on the Canucks at the wrong point in the team's cycle, but that doesn't mean they're garbage players.

Id say Roussell easy breasy is a 3rd liner. Hes got some talent but is inconsistent in that department. His shit disturbing play is consistent tho. Id be a liar if i said I remembered much about Lapierre so correct me if Im wrong but he didnt have much offence to give compared to Roussell

 

[Josepho]

Roussel is playing well even for the money he makes.

But I'm highly skeptical he can live up the term.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I don't want Jake on the 2nd line. I feel like he's exhausted his time with Horvat and he doesn't fit with Pettersson.

It's time to lock him into the 3RW spot and let him figure it out.

 

[Cupless44]

I don't want Jake on the 2nd line. I feel like he's exhausted his time with Horvat and he doesn't fit with Pettersson.

It's time to lock him into the 3RW spot and let him figure it out.

Not while Loui f***ing Eriksson is wasting away on the first line.

 

[PG Canuck]

I don't want Jake on the 2nd line. I feel like he's exhausted his time with Horvat and he doesn't fit with Pettersson.

It's time to lock him into the 3RW spot and let him figure it out.

Trying to play Virtanen in the top six with Pettersson or Horvat is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Askel]

Id say Roussell easy breasy is a 3rd liner. Hes got some talent but is inconsistent in that department. His **** disturbing play is consistent tho. Id be a liar if i said I remembered much about Lapierre so correct me if Im wrong but he didnt have much offence to give compared to Roussell

Roussel is better offensively, but Lapierre was a better defensive player.

Roussel is not a 3rd liner on a contender, look at the best teams in the league they all have better wingers than Roussel in their top nine. Roussel is a 4th liner on a contender, when the nucks have enough depth to play him on the 4th line then we can start taking about being a deep team.

 

[F A N]

Roussel is better offensively, but Lapierre was a better defensive player.

Roussel is not a 3rd liner on a contender, look at the best teams in the league they all have better wingers than Roussel in their top nine. Roussel is a 4th liner on a contender, when the nucks have enough depth to play him on the 4th line then we can start taking about being a deep team.

I disagree. Lapierre was a good playoff performer but in the regular season he was barely an adequate 4th line C most of the time.

Roussel may very well be on the 4th line on a contender or he may be on the 3rd. It depends on how the coach likes to roll his lines. Roussel will probably be on the shutdown line. Roussel at his best is good on the forecheck, helps drives possession, is good defensively and has some skill to put the puck into the net.

 

[PG Canuck]

8 games without a point (and counting), again.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Piss poor effort lately.