Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Olli Juolevi | #48 | D


b3.

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Spelled "Sbisa" wrong.  Or is that "Tryamkin"?  I hope we wouldn't be out signing UFA's on defence.

Yup :lol:

 

By all means I'm happy to move either Tanev or Edler but we're not signing any first pair UFA's. Some bottom pair or 7/8 D's? Sure, we might grab a UFA.

 

IMO, it's either move Edler and roll with:

 

Sbisa, Tanev

Hutton, Gudbranson

Tryamkin, Stecher (or some similar mix)

 

Or move Tanev and roll with:

 

Edler, Stecher

Hutton, Gudbranson

Sbisa, Tryamkin
 

IMO, the only way Juolevi is on the team is if one: he's deemed actually ready (doubtful IMO). Two: we move Hutton on top of one of Edler/Tanev (or Sbisa). Then he's likely be sheltered on the third pair, my guess would be alongside Gudbranson.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Canucks Curse said:

Sign Alzner

That's just not happening.

 

Alzner likely won't want to come here. Benning has already stated they won't be in the market for big name UFA's, just lesser bridge/depth guys.

 

It's not happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DeNiro said:

In no way do I wanna see Edler on this team next season. They've got to find a way to trade him.

 

They should keep Tanev, he compliments our puck movers.

 

I'd like to see:

 

UFA Tanev

Juolevi Stecher

Hutton Gudbranson

 

That's not for a couple years when Juolevi is ready though.

 

Trade the weak link so we can fit Tryamkin. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Actually that was a roster for a couple years from now if you had read it.

 

By then we may be in the market for UFA's. ;)

Ah, you and your qualifiers...

 

Then again, we have Brisebois and others in the pipeline, plus a McEneny who looks to be knocking on the door.  Top-pairing D are about the most costly asset one can acquire, and rarely do they become UFAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, b3. said:

 

Is/was OJ supposed to be a true PP defense man?

I think he originally said OJ could man the point on the power play, good passer and all that. But OJ is more of an all round D. I think what Benning is talking about is an offensive specialist D. Like Karlsson or Subban. Or the Subban we have and are hoping turns into that guy. i think its pretty obvious he was referencing Liljegren who has the potential to be a true #1 D. Personally thats who I think we should pick this draft if we get the chance and Patrick/Hirshier are gone. a D core of

 

Juolevi-Liljegren

Stetcher-Tryamkin

Hutton-Guddy

 

In years to come is tantalizing. I think next year we can get that Number 1C, especially since we'll be near the bottom again.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, b3. said:

 

Is/was OJ supposed to be a true PP defense man?

Not really, no. Steady 2 way guy who excels at transitioning the puck and has some offense. He certainly appears to be a more offensively adept version of  say Tanev but that doesn't make him an 'offensive' or 'PP' D. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juolevi could probably use another year in the O, and then another season in Utica. Wouldn't say his season is disappointing, but he didn't exactly take the next step which we all expected him to do but that's fine.

 

  • Upvote 1
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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