Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[Boudrias]

On 8/13/2017 at 0:35 PM, Diamonds said:

I haven't seen, but he apparently showed up at prospects camp at almost 200 and didn't join Finland at the World Juniors summer camp because it was reported his time was better spent working in the gym. So I haven't seen photos, but by all accounts he's spending a lot of time in the gym this summer. I'm waiting to see how he looks in preseason though, if he is getting physically outmatched still I'm all for sending him to Finland to spend a year with Salo.

 

One of the problems this year though is that in order for Juolevi to make the team one of our defensemen will have to be traded (most likely Hutton). So he will have to definitively outplay the other defensemen to get a spot, he can't just be marginally better than them. There is always a risk that a rookie will be very inconsistent and go into major slump, whereas the current defensemen have proven themselves over full seasons.

Unless he is a standout in camp there is no reason to bring a 19 year onto the Canuck d-core. A 3rd year in London with WJC and MemCup is a solid windup to his CHL career. 

 

No way Hutton is moved until coaching can see how he is progressing. I expect Hutton to have a much stronger year. EVen if it was decided to move him I cannot see that happening before the TDL. 

[Diamonds]

3 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Unless he is a standout in camp there is no reason to bring a 19 year onto the Canuck d-core. A 3rd year in London with WJC and MemCup is a solid windup to his CHL career. 

 

No way Hutton is moved until coaching can see how he is progressing. I expect Hutton to have a much stronger year. EVen if it was decided to move him I cannot see that happening before the TDL. 

Ya, returning to London definitely isn't the worst thing in the world. They have proven to be a really good development program and I'msure there is still more Juolevi can learn there. Personally I like the idea of him playing under Salo for a year a little bit better though (and still playing in the WJC).

 

I definitely agree regarding Hutton. He is a young up and coming defenseman in the league and I would like to see more of what he can do. I just think that if Benning decided that Juolevi should be on the team, Hutton is the most likely candidate to be moved.

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, Diamonds said:

Ya, returning to London definitely isn't the worst thing in the world. They have proven to be a really good development program and I'msure there is still more Juolevi can learn there. Personally I like the idea of him playing under Salo for a year a little bit better though (and still playing in the WJC).

 

I definitely agree regarding Hutton. He is a young up and coming defenseman in the league and I would like to see more of what he can do. I just think that if Benning decided that Juolevi should be on the team, Hutton is the most likely candidate to be moved.

If Hunter was not the coach in London I might think twice about Europe. We don't know what kind of coach Salo will be. I suspect a good one but there is no doubt that Hunter and his group in London pump out NHLer's regularly. What I like about London is that Joulevi had a solid offensive role in his first year and then Hunter played him as his primary d-zone defender last year. When the push came at the MemCup OJ was playing both roles with serious TOI. I expect this year that Joulevi will play the full gamet. I simply don't know what he will get in Europe. The idea of 'playing against men' or 'he is bored in London' is kinda laughable IMO.

 

Hutton might be trade bait come the TDL if he is not measuring up to expectations. I expect he will as he plays his 3rd season of pro. A d-man who can skate like Hutton can at 210 pounds gets a long look. More likely is that Tanev or Edler are moved at the TDL. They are worth more than Hutton at this point.   

[Hairy Kneel]

4 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Unless he is a standout in camp there is no reason to bring a 19 year onto the Canuck d-core. A 3rd year in London with WJC and MemCup is a solid windup to his CHL career. 

 

No way Hutton is moved until coaching can see how he is progressing. I expect Hutton to have a much stronger year. EVen if it was decided to move him I cannot see that happening before the TDL. 

I'm sure they can design a training regimine for him to become a stronger pro player. Weights, skating etc. Plus I'd like to see him learn (in junior) how to join the rush properly and add schemes for him on the PP.  Use London to learn more experiment more.

[Ossi Vaananen]

I still think plan B is Finland. I doubt he goes back to junior. He's better already than most guys being paid to play. He should therefore be paid to play.

[Hairy Kneel]

3 minutes ago, Ossi Vaananen said:

I still think plan B is Finland. I doubt he goes back to junior. He's better already than most guys being paid to play. He should therefore be paid to play.

That is a good idea too. Let someone show him some money.

[alfstonker]

On 8/13/2017 at 7:01 PM, Alflives said:

Stecher outplayed all the defence last camp and preseason, and he got cut.  I hope they don't make the same mistake with our d this year too.

Is that how it happened? Really?

So the risk of other players on D being lost to waivers and Stecher being able to pass through waivers had nothing to do with it. 

 

Good job we have you as resident historian Alf.

[WeneedLumme]

5 hours ago, alfstonker said:

Is that how it happened? Really?

So the risk of other players on D being lost to waivers and Stecher being able to pass through waivers had nothing to do with it. 

 

Good job we have you as resident historian Alf.

Yes, that was a terrible mistake last season to cut Stecher and bury him in the minors. Ruined his development and poisoned his relationship with the team. He and the team will probably never recover from that horrible blunder. Lol.

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

Every year the team is told that you have to earn your spot...if a rookie outplays the vets he will get the spot.

 

Stecher outplayed the vets and got sent down = WRONG

 

Larsson should have been waived and if he would have been picked up it would have saved us the pain of watching him try to play.

 

Lip service is a bad thing....if you tell the young guys they can earn a spot and then give it to a vet. anyway that is just WRONG.

 

Juolevi will have a shot at a spot but I don't think he outplays Holm for it...we shall see but if he does he should be on the team.,.

peiod, comma, decimal mark.

 

I am not laughing out loud....

[Diamonds]

30 minutes ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

Every year the team is told that you have to earn your spot...if a rookie outplays the vets he will get the spot.

 

Stecher outplayed the vets and got sent down = WRONG

 

Larsson should have been waived and if he would have been picked up it would have saved us the pain of watching him try to play.

 

Lip service is a bad thing....if you tell the young guys they can earn a spot and then give it to a vet. anyway that is just WRONG.

 

Juolevi will have a shot at a spot but I don't think he outplays Holm for it...we shall see but if he does he should be on the team.,.

peiod, comma, decimal mark.

 

I am not laughing out loud....

Except that Juolevi isn't competing with Holm. They are not going to keep him with the team to serve as the 7th or 8th defenseman.

 

If Juolevi wants a spot he needs to outplay one of Edler, Hutton, or MDZ and enough to justify a trade. Since Edler has a NTC and MDZ was only just signed as a free agent (and an immediate trade might deter other free agents from signing here in the future) it pretty much comes down to needing to outplay Hutton, another young up and coming defenseman. But as Boudrias pointed out earlier, there are also hesitations around trading Hutton this early. Not that it isn't possible, but Juolevi is in tough to make the team this year and a lot if that is logistics.

 

Saying that if young players prove themselves space will be made sounds good, and the Canucks have actually done a good job of showing it recently with players like Gaunce, Hutton, McCann, Stetcher, and Virtanen all getting opportunities the past two seasons. But the reality is that the logistics of the situation aren't always so easy.

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

29 minutes ago, Diamonds said:

Except that Juolevi isn't competing with Holm. They are not going to keep him with the team to serve as the 7th or 8th defenseman.

 

If Juolevi wants a spot he needs to outplay one of Edler, Hutton, or MDZ and enough to justify a trade. Since Edler has a NTC and MDZ was only just signed as a free agent (and an immediate trade might deter other free agents from signing here in the future) it pretty much comes down to needing to outplay Hutton, another young up and coming defenseman. But as Boudrias pointed out earlier, there are also hesitations around trading Hutton this early. Not that it isn't possible, but Juolevi is in tough to make the team this year and a lot if that is logistics.

 

Saying that if young players prove themselves space will be made sounds good, and the Canucks have actually done a good job of showing it recently with players like Gaunce, Hutton, McCann, Stetcher, and Virtanen all getting opportunities the past two seasons. But the reality is that the logistics of the situation aren't always so easy.

Logistics are never easy...my point is that management should stand by there word or change the message.

I think it is  Hutton or Holm he has to beat out for spot #6 not 7 or 8, I don't think he does it anyway though but if he did.....:

 

Edler/ Stecher

MDZ / Tanev

Hutton or Holm / Gudbranson

Holm or Hutton

[Spitfire_Spiky]

5 minutes ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

Logistics are never easy...my point is that management should stand by there word or change the message.

I think it is  Hutton or Holm he has to beat out for spot #6 not 7 or 8, I don't think he does it anyway though but if he did.....:

 

Edler/ Stecher

MDZ / Tanev

Hutton or Holm / Gudbranson

Holm or Hutton

I really hope they don't keep him on the team if its at the #6 spot. He won't get the minutes he needs for his development and could end up stuck on the bench during those critical times in a game which is what he needs to experience. Unless he can earn a top 4 role I believe another year in junior playing top minutes and in all situations will be the best for his development. However if he can outplay MDZ and Hutton I could see the defense getting setup with 3 decent pairing with say:

 

Edler/ Stecher

Juolevi/Tanev

Hutton or MDZ / Gudbranson.

 

 

 

[JamesB]

55 minutes ago, Diamonds said:

Except that Juolevi isn't competing with Holm. They are not going to keep him with the team to serve as the 7th or 8th defenseman.

 

If Juolevi wants a spot he needs to outplay one of Edler, Hutton, or MDZ and enough to justify a trade. Since Edler has a NTC and MDZ was only just signed as a free agent (and an immediate trade might deter other free agents from signing here in the future) it pretty much comes down to needing to outplay Hutton, another young up and coming defenseman. But as Boudrias pointed out earlier, there are also hesitations around trading Hutton this early. Not that it isn't possible, but Juolevi is in tough to make the team this year and a lot if that is logistics.

 

Saying that if young players prove themselves space will be made sounds good, and the Canucks have actually done a good job of showing it recently with players like Gaunce, Hutton, McCann, Stetcher, and Virtanen all getting opportunities the past two seasons. But the reality is that the logistics of the situation aren't always so easy.

 

19 minutes ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

Logistics are never easy...my point is that management should stand by there word or change the message.

I think it is  Hutton or Holm he has to beat out for spot #6 not 7 or 8, I don't think he does it anyway though but if he did.....:

 

Edler/ Stecher

MDZ / Tanev

Hutton or Holm / Gudbranson

Holm or Hutton

 

6 minutes ago, Spitfire_Spiky said:

I really hope they don't keep him on the team if its at the #6 spot. He won't get the minutes he needs for his development and could end up stuck on the bench during those critical times in a game which is what he needs to experience. Unless he can earn a top 4 role I believe another year in junior playing top minutes and in all situations will be the best for his development. However if he can outplay MDZ and Hutton I could see the defense getting setup with 3 decent pairing with say:

 

Edler/ Stecher

Juolevi/Tanev

Hutton or MDZ / Gudbranson.

 

 

 

Okay, we are in the slow part of the summer and it is hard to come up with ideas that both plausible and original. But for this question -- does Juolevi make the team -- I don't think much has changed since early July and I am in the same camp as @Diamonds. The odds are strongly against Juolevi making the team out of camp (at least beyond the 9 game limit before he burns a year off his ELC), He would need to play well enough to cause a trade.

 

I don't think that there is any reasonable disagreement that the top of the depth chart includes Tanev, Edler and Stecher. Also, the Canucks need the size and toughness of Guddy, just re-signed him for 3.5 million, gave up a lot for him in trade, and are still bullish on his value to the team. None of that is consistent with having him sit around as 7th man. He will be in the top 6. Similarly for MDZ, the Canucks just signed him for 2 years at a cap hit of $3 million per. You don't pay 3 million for a guy to sit around as 7th man. Obviously he is going to play in the top 6. That leaves one more spot and that spot is Hutton's spot to lose. I know that there has been talk about the Canucks being willing to trade Hutton. But if they don't he is almost certain to be in the top 6. Once again, they recently re-signed him at a 2.8 million per year cap hit and that is not what you do for a guy you expect to be 7th man.

 

That adds up to 6 guys for the top 6. As pretty much everyone agrees it makes no sense to have Juolevi hang around as 7th man. He needs to play, whether on the Canucks, in Junior or in Europe.

 

The Canucks signed Wiercioch at 650K (the NHL minimum), pretty much what you would expect for a guy expected to start as 7th man. And he is not waiver-exempt. I expect him to be on the 23-man roster.

 

Everthing the Canucks have said about Holm suggests that he will start in Utica (and he is on a two-way contract). Holm, Pedan, Subban, Biega, Brisebois, and McEneny will all be competing to see who gets to be the first injury call-up.

 

Juolevi would have to really shake things up to make the team and it would require a trade of one of the current top 6.

 

As a side note -- the Utica top 6 look very good.

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

I don't think Juolevi will be able to make it this year but Holm as the 7th D. and Wiercioch as the 8th D. is where I think things end up by Xmas if not the get go....

...does Holm have to clear waivers?  Being 25/26 years old I would think so....Rodin has to clear if I remember right....

Edited August 15, 2017 by Rollieo Del Fuego

[JamesB]

2 hours ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

I don't think Juolevi will be able to make it this year but Holm as the 7th D. and Wiercioch as the 8th D. is where I think things end up by Xmas if not the get go....

...does Holm have to clear waivers?  Being 25/26 years old I would think so....Rodin has to clear if I remember right....

Just checked CapFriendly and the CBA., Holm is waiver exempt. The rule is as follows: Players first signed when they are 25 or older (i.e. have never played in the NHL) are waiver exempt for one season. So he is waiver exempt this year. Next year he will be waiver eligible.

 

Almost all the players likely to be on the 23 man roster are waiver-eligible. Exceptions include Boeser, Goldobin and Virtanen, who are waiver exempt. I expect Virtanen to start the season in Utica, but Boeser and Goldy are, I think, likely to make the team. However, one of them could start the season in Utica if the Canucks want to give Juolevi a short regular season look. And one or two of the top 6 Ds could miss a game here or there to make space for Juolevi. I am not saying this is likely, but it is possible. And, as I indicated before, I think it is very unlikely that Juolevi stays more than 9 games.

[Boudrias]

21 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I'm sure they can design a training regimine for him to become a stronger pro player. Weights, skating etc. Plus I'd like to see him learn (in junior) how to join the rush properly and add schemes for him on the PP.  Use London to learn more experiment more.

London is a machine and Hunter is the coach. Europe is a 2nd best option with to many unknowns. Hunter is high end NHL coaching at the Junior level. There is a reason why Joulevi is as good as he is right now. Hunter had him on the #1 PK and #1 PP in the MemCup. What does that say about the confidence he has in OJ.  

[blackpluto96]

7 hours ago, Diamonds said:

Except that Juolevi isn't competing with Holm. They are not going to keep him with the team to serve as the 7th or 8th defenseman.

 

If Juolevi wants a spot he needs to outplay one of Edler, Hutton, or MDZ and enough to justify a trade. Since Edler has a NTC and MDZ was only just signed as a free agent (and an immediate trade might deter other free agents from signing here in the future) it pretty much comes down to needing to outplay Hutton, another young up and coming defenseman. But as Boudrias pointed out earlier, there are also hesitations around trading Hutton this early. Not that it isn't possible, but Juolevi is in tough to make the team this year and a lot if that is logistics.

 

Saying that if young players prove themselves space will be made sounds good, and the Canucks have actually done a good job of showing it recently with players like Gaunce, Hutton, McCann, Stetcher, and Virtanen all getting opportunities the past two seasons. But the reality is that the logistics of the situation aren't always so easy.

Exactly. I believe what GMJB said is if a young players earns a spot, he will clear up a spot for him. It takes time to clear up a spot and put a contracted player on the waiver should be done carefully.  He never said clear up a spot right away, or the hammer of the 'asset-management' group will come down on him right?

[alfstonker]

22 hours ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

Logistics are never easy...my point is that management should stand by there word or change the message.

I think it is  Hutton or Holm he has to beat out for spot #6 not 7 or 8, I don't think he does it anyway though but if he did.....:

 

Edler/ Stecher

MDZ / Tanev

Hutton or Holm / Gudbranson

Holm or Hutton

There is no confusion other than in your interpretation. 

 

Prospects will seldom get an NHL spot based on 2 or 3 games at camp and let's face it THAT is what most of the whiners are basing their argument on. Benning would need in nearly every case a bit more proof than seeing a prospect light it up against vets who in most cases haven't even got their game face on never mind playing at regular season levels. Add to that many of the lines the teams are playing are experimental and a mixture of vets and prospects, often meaning the regular roster is split to make two teams. That applies to both ourselves and the opposition. 

Are we seriously saying a vet gets replaced on the basis of a prospects performance against scratch opposition is the norm?

 

However if a prospect shows up well in these games AND lights it up in the first dozen AHL games there is a high chance he will get a look IF the player he would be replacing is injured or in a bad slump. That is what Benning means imo.

Of course on top of that is the waiver situation, Benning is not in management to "donate" assets to the opposition no matter how stupid the fan base is.

Edited August 16, 2017 by alfstonker

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, alfstonker said:

There is no confusion other than in your interpretation. 

 

Prospects will seldom get an NHL spot based on 2 or 3 games at camp and let's face it THAT is what most of the whiners are basing their argument on. Benning would need in nearly every case a bit more proof than seeing a prospect light it up against vets who in most cases haven't even got their game face on never mind playing at regular season levels. Add to that many of the lines the teams are playing are experimental and a mixture of vets and prospects, often meaning the regular roster is split to make to teams. That applies to both ourselves and the opposition. 

Are we seriously saying a vet gets replaced on the basis of a prospects performance against scratch opposition is the norm?

 

However if a prospect shows up well in these games AND lights it up in the first dozen AHL games there is a high chance he will get a look IF the player he would be replacing is injured or in a bad slump. That is what Benning means imo.

Of course on top of that is the waiver situation, Benning is not in management to "donate" assets to the opposition no matter how stupid the fan base is.

Pretty much agree. My only caveat would be the time line. Canucks are not contenders which should allow more patience by management. It is all about delopment which could be situational. Take Joulevi as an example. He plays well enough to maybe play 3rd pairing. Does that benefit him more than playing top TOI in London? He will be the 1D in London this year. Does #6 or #7 in Vancouver have more value? I don't see it. 

 

What is best for Boeser? Playing on a stronger AHL team or a Canuck team with poor prospects and a vet core that does not really cut it in the NHL. Does he gain more by playing half a season in Utica where he can get his feet wet and better understand the pro game? 

 

As usual most of these concerns are player specific but I do believe environment plays a big role. Since the Canucks will be rebuilding for at least another 3 years being cautious and taking time to develop prospects is the smart move.   

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

1 hour ago, alfstonker said:

There is no confusion other than in your interpretation. 

 

Prospects will seldom get an NHL spot based on 2 or 3 games at camp and let's face it THAT is what most of the whiners are basing their argument on. Benning would need in nearly every case a bit more proof than seeing a prospect light it up against vets who in most cases haven't even got their game face on never mind playing at regular season levels. Add to that many of the lines the teams are playing are experimental and a mixture of vets and prospects, often meaning the regular roster is split to make two teams. That applies to both ourselves and the opposition. 

Are we seriously saying a vet gets replaced on the basis of a prospects performance against scratch opposition is the norm?

 

However if a prospect shows up well in these games AND lights it up in the first dozen AHL games there is a high chance he will get a look IF the player he would be replacing is injured or in a bad slump. That is what Benning means imo.

Of course on top of that is the waiver situation, Benning is not in management to "donate" assets to the opposition no matter how stupid the fan base is.

I'm not sure if your calling me confused or stupid....

 

I am neither...

 

Benning stated before his first training camp with us that the prospects would get a fair shot and if they beat out the Vet.'s from training camp they would get a spot or at least 9 games to prove they deserved the spot.

I do not want to lose any players to waivers for no good reason but the stated philosophy should change then to;  "prospects can make the team if they beat out a vet. and it makes good business/hockey sense to keep them".

That would at least be the more honest and honourable approach.

Benning has to get his message straight or own up to it when needed.

 

Juolevi has very little chance this year but Boeser will make the team and someone else will probably show enough to make it but get sent down....

 

...no matter how smart some people think they are....