Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

b3.

By b3.
in Alumni

 Share

Recommended Posts

VegasCanuck Canucks Star

VegasCanuck

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Kobayashi Maru said:

I’m in the camp that would tell them to take DiPietro to take nobody else other than maybe a roster filler.

DiPietro is exempt from the draft. 

 

CapFriendly has a nice tool for figuring out who we have to expose. We have LOTS of options.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
knucklehead91 Canucks Prospect

knucklehead91

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

Nice straight line speed from Juolevi on the back check.

Doesn’t look like speed is too much of an issue in that clip. He caught up considerably quick, that guy had a 20 foot head start and Juolevi caught up by to him at our blueline. Hashmarks to our blueline in the time it took their player to go from blueline to blueline.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Devron Canucks All-Star

Devron

Posted
Posted

I’d really enjoy seeing him on the team next year. I think we gotta leave a spot for either him or Raff and the other can be first call up. It would just be the cherry on top of the rebuild if OJ turned into a top 4 Dman. Put a some naysayers to bed in the process 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kobayashi Maru Canucks Regular

Kobayashi Maru

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

DiPietro is exempt from the draft. 

 

CapFriendly has a nice tool for figuring out who we have to expose. We have LOTS of options.

To be clear I now he is exempt.  I’m talking about offering him to Seattle instead of them taking a player like Virtanen, Tryamkin, Edler, Myers, Pearson, Demko or whoever gets exposed.  I would think they would go for a goalie prospect instead, as it’s an area of strength if we retain Marky and Demko for at least the next 4 years.

Edited by Kobayashi Maru
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VegasCanuck Canucks Star

VegasCanuck

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Kobayashi Maru said:

To be clear I now he is except.  I’m talking about offering him to Seattle instead of them taking a player like Virtanen, Tryamkin, Edler, Myers, Pearson, Demko or whoever gets exposed.  I would think they would go for a goalie prospect instead, as it’s an area of strength if we retain Marky and Demko for at least the next 4 years.

The team will change dramatically this summer, we'll have a much better idea of who we can use as bait, once we get through training camp in September. There will be a lot of changes between now and then

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Kobayashi Maru said:

To be clear I now he is except.  I’m talking about offering him to Seattle instead of them taking a player like Virtanen, Tryamkin, Edler, Myers, Pearson, Demko or whoever gets exposed.  I would think they would go for a goalie prospect instead, as it’s an area of strength if we retain Marky and Demko for at least the next 4 years.

Assuming Benning keeps doing what he's doing and most of the key prospects etc continue to progress, I'm happy to offer up Myers as the sacrificial lamb and clear his $6m cap hit next summer (just in time to pay Hughes/Pettersson) ::D

 

Horvat, Miller, Toffoli, Boeser, Virtanen, Gaudette all protected. Pearson perhaps if he's still here (though he might not get protection anyway, as he's UFA with 'defacto' protection), otherwise that 7th slot could be Lind or somebody else's spot.

 

Depending on who actually earns it, three of Tryamkin, OJ, Rafferty, Brisebois...(Tanev and Stecher in the mix as well if either/both are still here). Edler (like Pearson) has defacto protection (and even more so, given his age and clear desire to remain in VAN).

 

Of course this gets a bit more fun if we do indeed re-sign Toffoli and trade/package one of Boeser/Virtanen for a D, in which case we might even be able to absorb some other teams F's for dimes on the dollar heading in to the ED!

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Noble 6 Canucks Third-Line

Noble 6

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Assuming Benning keeps doing what he's doing and most of the key prospects etc continue to progress, I'm happy to offer up Myers as the sacrificial lamb and clear his $6m cap hit next summer (just in time to pay Hughes/Pettersson) ::D

 

Myers is definitely a good candidate to try and dump in Expansion, but I still think Markstrom will be the biggest factor in determining what we do for that. Assuming we re-sign him at a 6 million dollar cap hit for around 4 years, I think it would probably make more sense to offload him instead for the following reasons:

 

  • There is an established precedent for this kind of move: Pittsburgh paid Vegas a 2nd rounder to take Fleury (the older goalie) instead of Murray (the younger goalie). We shouldn't have to deviate far from that baseline at all.
  • We would get the same amount of cap relief.
  • We would likely lose less assets paying for Seattle to take someone who is still good (Markstrom) rather than someone who is clearly overpaid (Myers). 
  • Assuming Demko has proven he's worthy of an increased role by this point, losing a backup hurts our team less than losing a defenseman.
  • The regular market for defensemen is stronger than the market for goalies normally, so we should take advantage of the special circumstances of the Expansion draft to dump a goalie instead. 

 

This is all assuming that we re-sign Markstrom at the previously mentioned contract and Demko shows he deserves an increased role. If one or both of those things don't happen, then dumping Myers is probably the better choice. 

Edited by Horvat is a Boss
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

Myers is definitely a good candidate to try and dump in Expansion, but I still think Markstrom will be the biggest factor in determining what we do for that. Assuming we re-sign him at a 6 million dollar cap hit for around 4 years, I think it would probably make more sense to offload him instead for the following reasons:

 

  • There is an established precedent for this kind of move: Pittsburgh paid Vegas a 2nd rounder to take Fleury (the older goalie) instead of Murray (the younger goalie). We shouldn't have to deviate far from that baseline at all.
  • We would get the same amount of cap relief.
  • We would likely lose less assets paying for Seattle to take someone who is still good (Markstrom) rather than someone who is clearly overpaid (Myers). 
  • Assuming Demko has proven he's worthy of an increased role by this point, losing a backup hurts our team less than losing a defenseman.
  • The regular market for defensemen is stronger than the market for goalies normally, so we should take advantage of the special circumstances of the Expansion draft to dump a goalie instead. 

 

This is all assuming that we re-sign Markstrom at the previously mentioned contract and Demko shows he deserves an increased role. If one or both of those things don't happen, then dumping Myers is probably the better choice. 

We'll see how it all sorts out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...