Location: I’m a dose of reality in this cesspool of glee Joined: 10.22.2011
Apr 15 @ 6:08 PM ET
Cam Robinson/
@Hockey_Robinson
·
8m
If the Canucks can keep just one, who should it be?
Jacob Markstrom
51.9%
Tyler Toffoli
45.5%
Chris Tanev
2.6%
268 votes · 1 day left
Been awhile since we had a youngish core of players, heading into next season, or early next season as there's some October November birthdays, this is the core of players and their ages. - LeftCoaster
I think this is why you don't even consider trading Jake now. He's basically MacEwan, but with 200 more games worth of experience. He probably won't be at his best until he is 26/27, like Miller.
Wasn't the big problem with Dahlen that he was pissed he didn't make the team out of camp and didn't want to be in the AHL? He seemed very self entitled. - Retinalz
He said that Cull never talked to him. That he had no idea what the coaching staff wanted from him, or why he didn't get more ice time etc. I don't think it was NHL related.
Location: "The Alien has landed in Vancouver!" Joined: 03.09.2006
Apr 15 @ 6:25 PM ET
I think this is why you don't even consider trading Jake now. He's basically MacEwan, but with 200 more games worth of experience. He probably won't be at his best until he is 26/27, like Miller. - 1970vintage
This is exactly why you trade him, he'll never reach that point with the Canucks and we can use the assets he brings us to improve other areas that we lack, namely, top 4 talent in the D (beyond Hughes who is unquestioningly our #1D). The point of developing talent is to be able to have a surplus to be able to trade from your surplus to improve in other areas. We have several capable replacements that are younger and have more tools than JV and therefore, trading him won't hurt us too badly.
A man in Adelaide bought 10 000 dollars worth of toilet paper and hand sanitiser . He bought it with the intentions of profiteering but E Bay and Amazon removed ads so he was not able to push his wares. He now wants the supermarket to buy it back and they wont.
This is exactly why you trade him, he'll never reach that point with the Canucks and we can use the assets he brings us to improve other areas that we lack, namely, top 4 talent in the D (beyond Hughes who is unquestioningly our #1D). The point of developing talent is to be able to have a surplus to be able to trade from your surplus to improve in other areas. We have several capable replacements that are younger and have more tools than JV and therefore, trading him won't hurt us too badly. - DariusKnight
1 - How can you know that? You can't, you don't. Everyone seems to really like Miller, but he was basically Jake when he was younger. Showed lots of promise, was in/out - up/down the lineup, lots of "coaching". I'm not saying Jake will be Miller in a few years, but he could be.
2 - I doubt you get much in trade, certainly not a legitimate top 4 D. The last top 4 D they traded for was... Gudbranson, which cost much more than Jake.
3 - They don't have "several capable replacements", at least not for all the positions they need to replace. I'd sooner get rid of Beagle, Sutter, Eriksson than Virtanen.
1 - How can you know that? You can't, you don't. Everyone seems to really like Miller, but he was basically Jake when he was younger. Showed lots of promise, was in/out - up/down the lineup, lots of "coaching". I'm not saying Jake will be Miller in a few years, but he could be.
2 - I doubt you get much in trade, certainly not a legitimate top 4 D. The last top 4 D they traded for was... Gudbranson, which cost much more than Jake.
3 - They don't have "several capable replacements", at least not for all the positions they need to replace. I'd sooner get rid of Beagle, Sutter, Eriksson than Virtanen. - 1970vintage
Sutter Beagle or Loui won't bring back a top 4 D - VANTEL
True, but I'd rather open up spots for young players by getting rid of those guys than a young player like Jake. Trust your development system, get those guys in the lineup. If you get to the same point in the season next year and need to move someone for more competent D, then do a Toffoli type deal then.
Location: "The Alien has landed in Vancouver!" Joined: 03.09.2006
Apr 15 @ 7:04 PM ET
1 - How can you know that? You can't, you don't. Everyone seems to really like Miller, but he was basically Jake when he was younger. Showed lots of promise, was in/out - up/down the lineup, lots of "coaching". I'm not saying Jake will be Miller in a few years, but he could be.
2 - I doubt you get much in trade, certainly not a legitimate top 4 D. The last top 4 D they traded for was... Gudbranson, which cost much more than Jake.
3 - They don't have "several capable replacements", at least not for all the positions they need to replace. I'd sooner get rid of Beagle, Sutter, Eriksson than Virtanen. - 1970vintage
1) Miller was drafted by NYR, had the same career trajectory as Jake, it wasn't until he was traded to TBL that he managed to reach his potential. I see the same happening with Jake. Sometimes a change in scenery can do wonders. Especially when it's a local kid where the pressure to perform is immense and any mistake/highlight is overblown.
2) In a package, especially being so young and cheap, yes he WILL bring you that top 4 D, now whether or not that's an upgrade remains to be seen since Benning's track record on D trades is abysmal, but the ability is there.
3) They have enough RW to replace Jake. MacEwen, Hoglander, Pod all can slot in for 3rd/4th line duties and have more high end skill and potential than Jake and all are younger. Bringing LE, Beagle, Sutter into it is a red herring since they are all slowly being moved from the roster as Utica replacements prove themselves (like Gaudette, MacEwen).
Again, I don't dislike Jake, I think he's a great tweener (mid 6) forward with upside. But he's a former top 10 pick and should be much better at this point. It's one of Benning's bad picks in the draft (OJ is the other) and it's time to move on while his value is high. We can afford to lose him as long as we get value back.
1) Miller was drafted by NYR, had the same career trajectory as Jake, it wasn't until he was traded to TBL that he managed to reach his potential. I see the same happening with Jake. Sometimes a change in scenery can do wonders. Especially when it's a local kid where the pressure to perform is immense and any mistake/highlight is overblown.
2) In a package, especially being so young and cheap, yes he WILL bring you that top 4 D, now whether or not that's an upgrade remains to be seen since Benning's track record on D trades is abysmal, but the ability is there.
3) They have enough RW to replace Jake. MacEwen, Hoglander, Pod all can slot in for 3rd/4th line duties and have more high end skill and potential than Jake and all are younger. Bringing LE, Beagle, Sutter into it is a red herring since they are all slowly being moved from the roster as Utica replacements prove themselves (like Gaudette, MacEwen).
Again, I don't dislike Jake, I think he's a great tweener (mid 6) forward with upside. But he's a former top 10 pick and should be much better at this point. It's one of Benning's bad picks in the draft (OJ is the other) and it's time to move on while his value is high. We can afford to lose him as long as we get value back. - DariusKnight
His value isn't high though, it's project for project territory. Miller generally credits AV for helping him become the player he is now. Green is doing the same thing for Virtanen (cue the Green love )
Location: "The Alien has landed in Vancouver!" Joined: 03.09.2006
Apr 15 @ 7:14 PM ET
His value isn't high though, it's project for project territory. Miller generally credits AV for helping him become the player he is now. Green is doing the same thing for Virtanen (cue the Green love ) - 1970vintage
That's true, but it was Jon Cooper that gave JM the ice time he needed to show that development. Are we certain Jake will ever get a sniff of consistant top 6 time in Vancouver that JM did in TBL?
That's true, but it was Jon Cooper that gave JM the ice time he needed to show that development. Are we certain Jake will ever get a sniff of consistant top 6 time in Vancouver that JM did in TBL? - DariusKnight
1) Miller was drafted by NYR, had the same career trajectory as Jake, it wasn't until he was traded to TBL that he managed to reach his potential. I see the same happening with Jake. Sometimes a change in scenery can do wonders. Especially when it's a local kid where the pressure to perform is immense and any mistake/highlight is overblown.
2) In a package, especially being so young and cheap, yes he WILL bring you that top 4 D, now whether or not that's an upgrade remains to be seen since Benning's track record on D trades is abysmal, but the ability is there.
3) They have enough RW to replace Jake. MacEwen, Hoglander, Pod all can slot in for 3rd/4th line duties and have more high end skill and potential than Jake and all are younger. Bringing LE, Beagle, Sutter into it is a red herring since they are all slowly being moved from the roster as Utica replacements prove themselves (like Gaudette, MacEwen).
Again, I don't dislike Jake, I think he's a great tweener (mid 6) forward with upside. But he's a former top 10 pick and should be much better at this point. It's one of Benning's bad picks in the draft (OJ is the other) and it's time to move on while his value is high. We can afford to lose him as long as we get value back. - DariusKnight
I don't think MacEwen has a higher ceiling than Jake. I think his ceiling is what Jake currently is, only more hitting and less speed. Pod is another year away and is more of a top 6 guys than a 3rd liner, Hog would be better on a line with Jake and Gaudette.
