Canucks Army Monday Mailbag: Guest Host

J.D. Burke is taking a break this week, which means the readers are stuck with me. J.D. is a busy man and I’ve always enjoyed the mailbag so I’m happy to fill-in when he is unable. We got a lot of great questions this week so let’s dive right in.

I just saw him on Saturday, so I’m pretty sure he’s okay. One twitter user had a pretty good theory as to what he’s up to, though:

If the Canucks are looking to weaponize their cap space, targeting Andrew MacDonald makes a lot of sense. MacDonald’s contract is infamous, but it’s also nearing the point where taking it on won’t be too onerous for a rebuilding team. He has two years left at five million apiece, so he won’t be interfering with the Canucks window. The Flyers also had a very strong season and despite being ousted somewhat unceremoniously last night by the Pittsburgh Penguins, they look like a team that could contend next year with a couple of roster tweaks or a shrewd free agent signing. Replacing MacDonald with Chris Tanev would probably go a long way towards improving their chances. By your logic, if you can’t get a great return for Chris Tanev, attaching a bad contract would maximize his trade value. I like the idea a lot; but I’m not sure that type of move fits with the Canucks’ mindset.

I would expect there to be a ton of draft content over the next two months on Nation Network Radio, which you should absolutely be checking out if you haven’t already. JD and I got into a bit of draft talk towards the end of hour one on Saturday when I filled in for John Abbott. All episodes are available in podcast form as well.

I feel like this question was specifically designed to elicit a long response, but I’ll try my best to keep the answer as brief as possible. Here’s the thing about physicality, or toughness, or players that exhibit those qualities: all that stuff is great. It is factor to be considered like any other. At the draft table, if you have two players on your board that you think are basically of the same quality, but one is tougher, it makes sense to take that player. It’s rarely that simple, though.

The reason you see “analytics guys” often singing the praises of smaller “figure skater”-type players is that the market undervalues them. This works both ways, too. When Cody Franson struggled to find a contract and was subsequently waived because he lacks foot speed, he had his share of defenders as well. Those situations are just more rare. For the most part, size and toughness are two things the market vastly overvalues.

With regards to Jake Virtanen and William Nylander, one has 11 playoff games of experience and the other has none; so if you’re trying to to pump Virtanen’s tires in this respect, you’re getting ahead of yourself. More importantly, the two players are roughly the same age, and William Nylander has 101 more career points than Virtanen, and he only has about half a season more NHL games played. Nylander’s struggled in this playoff series, but he’s young and the sample is tiny. Nylander’s proven to be a consistent 60-point player to this point in his career, whereas Virtanen’s career high is 20 points. It’s not rocket science. I will take a 60-point player over a 20-point player every single time. If you wouldn’t, the onus is on you to explain why, not me.

As far as the assertion that Virtanen is going to finally show his worth in a long, tight checking playoff series, there are a couple things that don’t pass the sniff test there. First of all, what exactly has Jake Virtanen done in the regular season that makes you think he’s going to suddenly come alive at playoff time? He’s a fine depth player with some speed and grit; but I can’t think of one instance outside of the hit on Kronwall last season where I was particularly wowed by his physical presence. Even in this respect, he disappears for long stretches. He can improve, but he needs to be more consistent.

More importantly, you win the game by outscoring the other team, not outhitting them. Look at the teams that are having success right now. Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Nashville, are all built on speed and skill. Boston and Winnipeg can definitely play a punishing style, but they also have some of the best offensive players in the league.

The final flaw in logic for me is the idea that players somehow miraculously improve when every element of the game gets tighter, more difficult, and more punishing. That’s never true of anyone in any trade, and to the extent that it appears true, it’s almost always a player who’s shown prior offensive prowess (Daniel Briere comes to mind). Saying Jake Virtanen, a player who struggles in the regular season, is going to suddenly change come the playoffs, when literally every part of the game gets more difficult; is like me saying, “well, I’m not much of a guitar player; but if you lopped two of my fingers off, that’s when I’d really shine”.

It’s time to take the “L” and move on. Virtanen could still be a good NHL player; but he’s not going to be better than the players the Canucks passed on.

I’m not going to lie, I haven’t had much of a chance to watch the Comets this season, so I can’t really comment. I will say I think the chemistry would make sense based on their attributes. I would direct this question to Cory Hergott if you want a more educated and detailed opinion.

I’ll preface my answer by saying that I think very highly of all four players. Nick Merkley is an odd one. At one time he seemed like a surefire top-five pick. He’s fallen significantly since then, and in the past I probably would have pulled my hair out over it. There have been a lot of instances recently where rumours of character problems have turned out to be not only true, but also ultimately detrimental to the player’s career. With a high pick, you have to take Dobson over Merkley if he’s available. That’s just good risk management.

The second question is tougher. I lean Svechnikov because he’s had the better season; but there are reasons for sober second-thought with regards to him as well. The last time a CanucksArmy writer brought it up, people got really mad, so I guess I’ll just leave it at that.

I think the only person in the Canucks organization who saw this coming is Thomas Gradin. In a recent series of interviews with top Canucks executives, he was the only person who didn’t express surprise at Pettersson’s season.

Oh, but he also missed on Pastrnak apparently. Guess we better hold his feet to the fire for that one. Forget that the European scouts wanted Nylander over Virtanen in the same draft, and that Jim Benning was employed by the team that drafted Pastrnak up until a couple of months before the draft.

Here’s a question I’d love to see in next week’s mailbag: Is there a man in Vancouver who loves to take “L”s as consistently as C-Ball?

This one is getting a bit long, so we’ll leave it at that for now. Stay tuned for part two.