[Signing] Canucks sign Luke Schenn

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Agreed. I think Rathbone, barring a completely dominant camp/preseason where he forces the issue, should start the year with Abby.

 

He’ll still get called up for games regardless, even if it’s just for injury relief. And he very well may claim a lineup spot by mid to late season, but there’s really no need to start him on the roster from day one.

Especially since that would mean either sitting or waiving Juolevi, which I can’t imagine the Canucks brass would want. They’re already far too invested in OJ to give up now. And they have no reason to, as Juolevi made good progress last season, so they should see that through and hopefully this year will see OJ stake his claim as a legitimate NHLer, ideally with several hundred more NHL games in his future.

 

I’d probably be arguing for pulling the plug on OJ if I didn’t think he still had what it takes to become an everyday player for this team. But we’re really not in sunk cost fallacy territory with Juolevi yet. He’s shown enough that the Canucks would be foolish not to give him an opportunity this season.

 

And Juolevi absolutely needs to play. It’s definitely put up or shut up time for OJ, and I think he needs to have a pretty solid season if he hopes to remain with this team (as Rathbone is certainly pushing for that spot, and even Brad Hunt is capable of leapfrogging OJ if he falters), but I’m optimistic that Olli will come in and have a strong camp, and lay claim to that 3LD slot on the opening night roster.

 

The Canucks also sort of need him, if for no other reason than to have another option for PK and defensive starts on the left side, after OEL. The D corps definitely looks far more balanced with OJ in it than it does without him.

I agree. Nothing wrong with Rathbone playing a big minute, all situations role with Abby.

 

And I think Juolevi has shown enough to earn a real full time opportunity. He will have to win the spot at camp but he is rounding into the type of player we need on the left side like you say.

 

 

[tas]

with green and benning, jobs are won at camp. whichever of juolevi or rathbone performs better at camp will be on the team regardless of waiver eligibility or other complicating factors, and based on track record, my money is on bone. 

[therodigy]

1 hour ago, tas said:

with green and benning, jobs are won at camp. whichever of juolevi or rathbone performs better at camp will be on the team regardless of waiver eligibility or other complicating factors, and based on track record, my money is on bone. 

This, not to mention Hunt will likely in the mix for 6/7D as well. This takes me back to when we first acquired Motte and how there were members of the fan base that wanted Motte sent down because he only had one game remaining before being waiver eligible. Why? Not because he wasn't good enough to be on the 4th line, but because of asset management reasons. Quite frankly, it would've been asset mismanagement to send him down because he's solidified himself as an important member of the bottom 6.

 

I don't want Juolevi on the team because Rathbone isn't eligible to be waived. I want Juolevi to claim his spot in the top 6 because he's earned it. If Rathbone and Hunt both outperform Juolevi, then it is what it is... cue the same posters freaking out when Pedan was waived!

[J-P]

3 hours ago, therodigy said:

This, not to mention Hunt will likely in the mix for 6/7D as well. This takes me back to when we first acquired Motte and how there were members of the fan base that wanted Motte sent down because he only had one game remaining before being waiver eligible. Why? Not because he wasn't good enough to be on the 4th line, but because of asset management reasons. Quite frankly, it would've been asset mismanagement to send him down because he's solidified himself as an important member of the bottom 6.

 

I don't want Juolevi on the team because Rathbone isn't eligible to be waived. I want Juolevi to claim his spot in the top 6 because he's earned it. If Rathbone and Hunt both outperform Juolevi, then it is what it is... cue the same posters freaking out when Pedan was waived!

I agree with this.

 

It's still a valid point though that all else being equal OJ gets the nod because of waiver eligibility. And nothing wrong with that, just asset management.

 

I'm hoping to see both OJ and Bone in the lineup in a year or two, but my guess is many are putting too much into Bones brief stint last season which actually was kinda mixed bag. Not sure he's ready yet. OJ on the other hand looks ready if he's skating has improved a bit.

 

By all means, if I'm wrong and Bone is clearly the better D during camp, so be it.

 

Nice with some depth on D, it'll be interesting to see what Woo, Keeper and Hunt can do during camp.

[PhillipBlunt]

On 8/1/2021 at 6:13 PM, stawns said:

OJ won'tpass through waivers and they'll lose him

That’s for sure. He’s too good to go unnoticed. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, tas said:

with green and benning, jobs are won at camp. whichever of juolevi or rathbone performs better at camp will be on the team regardless of waiver eligibility or other complicating factors, and based on track record, my money is on bone. 

100% 

 

Tyler Motte 

Nils Hoglander 

 

Both of those guys came into camp and impressed enough to either win their way onto the roster (Motte) or win a spot on the 2nd line (Hogy). 

 

Btw look for Matthew Highmore to be the surprise this year that ends up getting a spot on the 3rd line with Dickinson.  You heard it here first  

[wallstreetamigo]

19 hours ago, therodigy said:

This, not to mention Hunt will likely in the mix for 6/7D as well. This takes me back to when we first acquired Motte and how there were members of the fan base that wanted Motte sent down because he only had one game remaining before being waiver eligible. Why? Not because he wasn't good enough to be on the 4th line, but because of asset management reasons. Quite frankly, it would've been asset mismanagement to send him down because he's solidified himself as an important member of the bottom 6.

 

I don't want Juolevi on the team because Rathbone isn't eligible to be waived. I want Juolevi to claim his spot in the top 6 because he's earned it. If Rathbone and Hunt both outperform Juolevi, then it is what it is... cue the same posters freaking out when Pedan was waived!

Would rather see Juolevi traded rather than lost on waivers though.

[canucklehead44]

I would rather Juolevi make the team and Rathbone get a chance to develop his pro game than Rathbone make the team and Juolevi to get lost on waivers. Even if Rathbone has a stronger camp. This is a do or die moment for our former 5th overall pick - Losing him after only 23 games in the NHL would suck, especially since his issues are more injury related than his actual play.

 

that said 1/4 way through the season if Rathbone is crushing the AHL and Juolevi is struggling you need to make the switch.

[therodigy]

3 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Would rather see Juolevi traded rather than lost on waivers though.

I think it depends on how he performs at camp. If he has a strong camp but he's still beaten out of a 6/7 spot by Rathbone/Hunt, I say trade him, even if it's a 5th round pick. If he has a poor camp, it's likely he can slip through for some necessary development time in Abbotsford, at which point he would garner more value as a flexible piece that can go up and down for a limited amount of time. It's a gamble in any event, and only time will tell.

Edited August 3, 2021 by therodigy

[tas]

On 8/1/2021 at 7:13 PM, stawns said:

OJ won'tpass through waivers and they'll lose him

if he's not good enough for the canucks roster, which roster is he good enough to make?

[stawns]

1 minute ago, tas said:

if he's not good enough for the canucks roster, which roster is he good enough to make?

He looked ready last season to me.

[tas]

18 minutes ago, stawns said:

He looked ready last season to me.

but what I mean is, if he gets beaten out by rathbone for the spot and the team doesn't carry 8 defence (which I suspect they will anyway), and juolevi subsequently gets waived, which team is going to claim him and dedicate a roster spot for him?

[stawns]

34 minutes ago, tas said:

but what I mean is, if he gets beaten out by rathbone for the spot and the team doesn't carry 8 defence (which I suspect they will anyway), and juolevi subsequently gets waived, which team is going to claim him and dedicate a roster spot for him?

Someone will, guaranteed. Former high pick who hasn't had a chance to get going yet because of injuries and covid?  He will 100% get claimed.

 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, tas said:

but what I mean is, if he gets beaten out by rathbone for the spot and the team doesn't carry 8 defence (which I suspect they will anyway), and juolevi subsequently gets waived, which team is going to claim him and dedicate a roster spot for him?

Columbus 

Ottawa 

Buffalo 

 

maybe a handful of other teams. Although our defense isn’t the deepest, there are a few teams out there that have worst dmen then us. 

[tas]

26 minutes ago, stawns said:

Someone will, guaranteed. Former high pick who hasn't had a chance to get going yet because of injuries and covid?  He will 100% get claimed.

 

I'll believe it when I see it. this panic happens literally every season, and either the guy goes unclaimed (probably 80% of the time) or he actually does get claimed and goes on to have a frankie corrado or andrey pedan career. 

 

there are so many of these tweeners around that most teams won't bother taking a flyer on somebody else's when they have 2 or 3 of their own already. 

[stawns]

32 minutes ago, tas said:

I'll believe it when I see it. this panic happens literally every season, and either the guy goes unclaimed (probably 80% of the time) or he actually does get claimed and goes on to have a frankie corrado or andrey pedan career. 

 

there are so many of these tweeners around that most teams won't bother taking a flyer on somebody else's when they have 2 or 3 of their own already. 

We're not talking about Jalen Chatfield here.  This is a 23 year old with elite potential.

[tas]

Just now, stawns said:

We're not talking about Jalen Chatfield here.  This is a 23 year old with elite potential.

I think you're using elite a little too liberally there. I'd counter that he's a 23 year old former high pick who (due to whatever circumstances) has reached waiver eligibility without establishing himself for more than a handful of nhl games. 

[stawns]

21 minutes ago, tas said:

I think you're using elite a little too liberally there. I'd counter that he's a 23 year old former high pick who (due to whatever circumstances) has reached waiver eligibility without establishing himself for more than a handful of nhl games. 

I don't think I am at all.  The only thing that's held OJ back is lack of plating time due to injuries.  I think there's absolutely zero chance he makes it through waivers.

 

Why did they protect him?  Why not use him as a sweetner on a deal?  Why resign him?

[Kenny Blankenship]

37 minutes ago, tas said:

I think you're using elite a little too liberally there. I'd counter that he's a 23 year old former high pick who (due to whatever circumstances) has reached waiver eligibility without establishing himself for more than a handful of nhl games. 

It’s very naive to think no one would claim OJ. Someone would take him without a doubt. 

[tas]

2 hours ago, stawns said:

I don't think I am at all.  The only thing that's held OJ back is lack of plating time due to injuries.  I think there's absolutely zero chance he makes it through waivers.

 

Why did they protect him?  Why not use him as a sweetner on a deal?  Why resign him?

they protected him because they couldn't acquire a better dman through trade prior to expansion. they didn't use him as a sweetener, presumably, because there wasn't a deal where it was requested. you re-sign him (though they haven't, and every time Jim talks about the contracts they need to sign, juolevi is an afterthought) because he's still an asset, so why wouldn't you?