Alflives Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, JamesB said: Clam linguine is right. If Juolevi becomes a #1 D and scores 40-50 pts per season (combined with his strong defensive play), then he is likely to be the best player in the draft aside from Matthews and Laine. The problem is that, while there is uncertainty, there is not much reason to believe that he will become a #1 D and score 40-50 pts. per year. There were quite a few other Ds in the draft who appear just as likely as Juolevi of reaching that level. Juolevi is good but, based on everything we have seen so far (and what professional scouts have seen) he looks like at #2 or #3 guy whose scoring will be well below the 0.5 PPG that high end offensive D's get. Just watching the WJC this year, if objective observers were making a list of the top Ds in the tournament, just based on how they looked at the tournament and not on draft position, I don't see Juolevi making a lot of top 5 lists. Even on a weak Finnish team he was only 3rd or 4th on the team in ice time most games at the WJC. Yes there is uncertainty but, for such a high draft pick, you would hope for less uncertainty at this stage. I think Tkachuk as already shown that he is a good NHL player. I don't think signing Eriksson was "playing the long game". It was exactly the opposite -- looking for an expensive quick fix. And that happened after drafting Juolevi. I have been all in favour of the long game since the Benning was first hired. He is the one showing impatience with expensive UFA signings like Miller and Vrbata that only delayed the rebuild, and trading away a lot of draft picks in an attempt to provide immediate help (starting in his first summer with acquisitions of Vey and Dorsett). And those early acquisitions -- Miller, Vrby, Vey, Dorsett -- probably did help the team that first year. But it came at high cost and did not nothing positive for the long term future -- just delaying the rebuild. And Benning's announced strategy was, initially, to "make the playoffs while rebuiliding", which gradually changed to "contend for the playoffs while rebuilding" and is now, apparently, be patient. Excellent post. Alf keeps wanting to drink the Benning Koolaide, but then he comes across really good posts, like yours. Didn't TL say it wouldn't be fair to the Twins to rebuild? Considering that comment, we are two seasons from the rebuild actually starting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numb3r 16 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Squamfan said: ya in a bad game. but ollie is going to be another 5-6 dman not top two like doughty or karlson Attention seeking troll hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 24 minutes ago, JamesB said: Clam linguine is right. If Juolevi becomes a #1 D and scores 40-50 pts per season (combined with his strong defensive play), then he is likely to be the best player in the draft aside from Matthews and Laine. The problem is that, while there is uncertainty, there is not much reason to believe that he will become a #1 D and score 40-50 pts. per year. There were quite a few other Ds in the draft who appear just as likely as Juolevi of reaching that level. Juolevi is good but, based on everything we have seen so far (and what professional scouts have seen) he looks like at #2 or #3 guy whose scoring will be well below the 0.5 PPG that high end offensive D's get. Just watching the WJC this year, if objective observers were making a list of the top Ds in the tournament, just based on how they looked at the tournament and not on draft position, I don't see Juolevi making a lot of top 5 lists. Even on a weak Finnish team he was only 3rd or 4th on the team in ice time most games at the WJC. Yes there is uncertainty but, for such a high draft pick, you would hope for less uncertainty at this stage. I think Tkachuk as already shown that he is a good NHL player. I don't think signing Eriksson was "playing the long game". It was exactly the opposite -- looking for an expensive quick fix. And that happened after drafting Juolevi. I have been all in favour of the long game since the Benning was first hired. He is the one showing impatience with expensive UFA signings like Miller and Vrbata that only delayed the rebuild, and trading away a lot of draft picks in an attempt to provide immediate help (starting in his first summer with acquisitions of Vey and Dorsett). And those early acquisitions -- Miller, Vrby, Vey, Dorsett -- probably did help the team that first year. But it came at high cost and did not nothing positive for the long term future -- just delaying the rebuild. And Benning's announced strategy was, initially, to "make the playoffs while rebuiliding", which gradually changed to "contend for the playoffs while rebuilding" and is now, apparently, be patient. We're speaking of the draft pick ONLY. This is not the rehash every move thread it is the Juolevi thread. Not Eriksson, Tkachuk, Ehlers, Virtanen etc Juolevi The JUolevi pick is forcing them to play a longer game via drafting/development which is going to be key to the long term future and success of this club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Warhippy said: Not drafting Tkacuk was a blessing to this team in disguise. It forced the management group to play the long game instead of the immediate in the present game for once. A draft choice that allows us to make plans for the future, not the post season. Roy Baby Ballard Kassian Rucinsky It's happened for years, literal decades. Don't pretend to be ignorant of this fact. We trade our way to mediocrity once a decade, or give up youth for "more established players" I'll ask you to do the exact same. Find a decade where the Canucks DIDN'T do exactly that. Use both sides of the interwebs if you need to. Just when I have hope that you're coming around, you turn and drop another total steaming pile of straw. You said: Quote Hope they use to justify ridiculous trades for a post season push. Just Like Always You know very well you were including THIS management with your "always" accusation, but if you're now going to turn it around into "Oh, I meant PAST management" then your entire post is an even bigger pit of troll bunk because you know it. That's why I asked for examples of your contention, knowing there are NONE. Total absolute straw man, and you are obstinately unapologetic about it. If you're going to accuse management (or whomever), at least have some facts to back up your charges instead of projecting past failures onto the current regime which has NO history of doing what your accusing them of doing and nothing to do with what they did in the first place. I know you like worrying and hand-wringing, but at least have some basis for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 36 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: Just when I have hope that you're coming around, you turn and drop another total steaming pile of straw. You said: You know very well you were including THIS management with your "always" accusation, but if you're now going to turn it around into "Oh, I meant PAST management" then your entire post is an even bigger pit of troll bunk because you know it. That's why I asked for examples of your contention, knowing there are NONE. Total absolute straw man, and you are obstinately unapologetic about it. If you're going to accuse management (or whomever), at least have some facts to back up your charges instead of projecting past failures onto the current regime which has NO history of doing what your accusing them of doing and nothing to do with what they did in the first place. I know you like worrying and hand-wringing, but at least have some basis for it. No, see now I think it is you sir who are sitting atop a pile. Just Like Always That means this ORGANIZATION. Not once did I mention this management group only management in general. Management that over the last 40+ years has done just that. Every decade. You can twist it however you'd like to back up your statement. But my statement was as always when I speak of making trades and long term health/future of this club about everything from 1970 to present. My posts pre and post this one you quoted in regards to that historically back that up very well. By the by, when you quoted me you also missed this part of my statement We picked for the future not the now. If you want something now go watch another team. This is a marathon in terms of rebuilding this club and don't be surprised if we take another player on D or C that doesn't see the NHL next year as we develop him. I for one will enjoy the crying when it happens. Note that mention of future. Marathon. Rebuilding and developing. I've mentioned numerous times over numerous threads that this organization has a history of jumping the gun to try to do things one way and instead find their way in to mediocrity. Tkachuk would have very well allowed them the open door to do this yet again. Juolevi is the long game this organization needs for once. With luck they do the same again this year and give them a solid season or 3 outside of the NHL to properly develop players giving this club for the first time ever a development program worth speaking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
two drink minimum Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, Warhippy said: No, see now I think it is you sir who are sitting atop a pile. Just Like Always That means this ORGANIZATION. Not once did I mention this management group only management in general. Management that over the last 40+ years has done just that. Every decade. You can twist it however you'd like to back up your statement. But my statement was as always when I speak of making trades and long term health/future of this club about everything from 1970 to present. My posts pre and post this one you quoted in regards to that historically back that up very well. By the by, when you quoted me you also missed this part of my statement We picked for the future not the now. If you want something now go watch another team. This is a marathon in terms of rebuilding this club and don't be surprised if we take another player on D or C that doesn't see the NHL next year as we develop him. I for one will enjoy the crying when it happens. Note that mention of future. Marathon. Rebuilding and developing. I've mentioned numerous times over numerous threads that this organization has a history of jumping the gun to try to do things one way and instead find their way in to mediocrity. Tkachuk would have very well allowed them the open door to do this yet again. Juolevi is the long game this organization needs for once. With luck they do the same again this year and give them a solid season or 3 outside of the NHL to properly develop players giving this club for the first time ever a development program worth speaking of. I think Tkachuk will have a long successful career and he's exactly the kind of difference maker the Canucks could use. Ollie may be a fine d-man one day but I don't see him making the same kind of impact as MT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Just now, two drink minimum said: I think Tkachuk will have a long successful career and he's exactly the kind of difference maker the Canucks could use. Ollie may be a fine d-man one day but I don't see him making the same kind of impact as MT. But We have Willie D to coach him. We also don't have a Bennett/Gaudreau/Monahan/Giordano to help him. We're also the canucks and 1 of his plays this year alone would have cost him a suspension Wingers make flashy plays which is all great. But Defense while not a sexy pick ever. Wins championships. We can find a winger but we cannot find a Juolevi should he reach even 3/4s of his potential PLayers like Tkachuk can be found through the draft, free agency or via trade far more easily than defensemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmalina Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Olli was shooting a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
two drink minimum Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: But We have Willie D to coach him. We also don't have a Bennett/Gaudreau/Monahan/Giordano to help him. We're also the canucks and 1 of his plays this year alone would have cost him a suspension Wingers make flashy plays which is all great. But Defense while not a sexy pick ever. Wins championships. We can find a winger but we cannot find a Juolevi should he reach even 3/4s of his potential PLayers like Tkachuk can be found through the draft, free agency or via trade far more easily than defensemen. I disagree with just about all of this especially the last part MT is on pace for almost 50 pts as a rookie which in this day and age is pretty spectacular. He's proving it at the NHL level as a teenager. Ollie would have to be a top 2-3 d man at the minimum to match what it looks like Tkachuk will be in 4-5 years. I don't see Ollie as anything more than a 4 at this point but I could be wrong and if I am I will admit it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, two drink minimum said: I disagree with just about all of this especially the last part MT is on pace for almost 50 pts as a rookie which in this day and age is pretty spectacular. He's proving it at the NHL level as a teenager. Ollie would have to be a top 2-3 d man at the minimum to match what it looks like Tkachuk will be in 4-5 years. I don't see Ollie as anything more than a 4 at this point but I could be wrong and if I am I will admit it OK Now. What will we need as an organization in 4 to 5 years. A left winger. Or a quality LHD that can put up points while being defensively responsible? As you can disagree with whatever you'd like but we have a coach that is questionable, questionable line mates for a guy like Tkachuk and an very uncertain future where Calgary has a lot of what we need already in place barring goaltending depth and coaching. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
two drink minimum Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: OK Now. What will we need as an organization in 4 to 5 years. A left winger. Or a quality LHD that can put up points while being defensively responsible? As you can disagree with whatever you'd like but we have a coach that is questionable, questionable line mates for a guy like Tkachuk and an very uncertain future where Calgary has a lot of what we need already in place barring goaltending depth and coaching. I agree the Flames are further ahead on the rebuild curve and that may be some help to a young MT but he's coming as advertised. Some scouts had him as the 3rd best player behind Matthews and Laine and ahead of Poolparty/PLD. I think in 4-5 years the Canucks will need both LW and an LHD so as I see it the best bet is who will have a bigger impact as an NHLer. I believe it will be MT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollieo Del Fuego Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 OJ was +1 and had 7 shots on goal in his final world junior game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, two drink minimum said: I disagree with just about all of this especially the last part MT is on pace for almost 50 pts as a rookie which in this day and age is pretty spectacular. He's proving it at the NHL level as a teenager. Ollie would have to be a top 2-3 d man at the minimum to match what it looks like Tkachuk will be in 4-5 years. I don't see Ollie as anything more than a 4 at this point but I could be wrong and if I am I will admit it I think Tkachuk would have struggled in Vancouver. He gets to complement the existing skill that the Flames have, whereas with Vancouver he would be counted on to produce offense on his own (he'd have to be a Sedin rather than a Burrows). The role he is in with Calgary is perfect for him, especially at this time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 3 hours ago, JamesB said: I don't think signing Eriksson was "playing the long game". It was exactly the opposite -- looking for an expensive quick fix. And that happened after drafting Juolevi. Signing Errikson was just as much about 2 years+ from now when likely we'll be without Burrows, Hansen and 2 Sedins while quite possibly not quite having ready forward prospects to play a top 6 role. That's probably about when Juolevi might be showing up. Be nice for him to have one veteran top 6 guy to pay with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
two drink minimum Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, c00kies said: I think Tkachuk would have struggled in Vancouver. He gets to complement the existing skill that the Flames have, whereas with Vancouver he would be counted on to produce offense on his own (he'd have to be a Sedin rather than a Burrows). The role he is in with Calgary is perfect for him, especially at this time. Perhaps he would have less points if he were in Van but who knows. Really cant say for sure. Maybe Ollie struggles significantly because of being in Vancouver too. its all speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Just now, two drink minimum said: Perhaps he would have less points if he were in Van but who knows. Really cant say for sure. Maybe Ollie struggles significantly because of being in Vancouver too. its all speculation I don't think he would have even been on the Canucks roster, especially with how Virtanen's development has taken shape. OJ will probably struggle earlier on than MT due to size and the typical developmental path for a d-man. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post aGENT Posted January 3, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted January 3, 2017 14 minutes ago, The 5th Line said: This is just another sad excuse. Why are people so afraid to admit how nice it would be to have Tkatchuk? There is no possible way you can judge how well he would of done, put him with the Sedins and who knows? He's pretty much a Burrows in his prime. It would be nice to have Jost, Keller, Sergachev etc too. You only get one pick. You can't have all the players. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 2 hours ago, The 5th Line said: This is just another sad excuse. Why are people so afraid to admit how nice it would be to have Tkatchuk? There is no possible way you can judge how well he would of done, put him with the Sedins and who knows? He's pretty much a Burrows in his prime. He's a lot like a young Keith Tkachuk actually. Who knows why Benning didn't draft him, according to Tkachuk himself the Canucks were never interested. Myself, I thought we would wind up with Tkachuk or Dubois until I heard they were high on one of the defensemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time Lord Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 3 hours ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said: OJ was +1 and had 7 shots on goal in his final world junior game. He hasn't played his final world junior game yet. The 5th place teams play in a 3 game relegation series and Finland won game 1 today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 6 hours ago, J.R. said: It would be nice to have Jost, Keller, Sergachev etc too. You only get one pick. You can't have all the players. DRAFT ALL THE PLAYERZZ!! SIGN ALL THE FA!!! TRADE ALL THE PLAYERZZ!!! LOL... that basically sums up the CDC's id 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now