PhillipBlunt Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 12 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Quennville is a no nonsense coach. Im guessing we’ll find out pretty quickly if it was Olli that was the problem or our coaching staff. And a very capable and winning coach. With a great stache. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 40 minutes ago, flickyoursedin said: The one year it looks like Olli could make our bottom 6 and get some decent minutes he’s shipped out. This trade feels like it was probably 2-3 months too early. Should have given the kid a chance to really sink or swim. ... or a year too late. High 1st round picks retain some decent residual value longer than most players, trading him right at the time when the alternative was going to be waiving him and having him available for free was about as low a value as you can get. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Provost said: ... or a year too late. High 1st round picks retain some decent residual value longer than most players, trading him right at the time when the alternative was going to be waiving him and having him available for free was about as low a value as you can get. A year ago his value was still low. Maybe a late 2nd round pick in return at best. At that point is it really worth it to give up on a guy early. I’d rather hand walk him out of the league than give him away for pennies and watch him turn into a useful player. Some people on here wrote off a guy like Puljujarvi who is looking pretty good for the Oilers now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 8 minutes ago, flickyoursedin said: A year ago his value was still low. Maybe a late 2nd round pick in return at best. At that point is it really worth it to give up on a guy early. I’d rather hand walk him out of the league than give him away for pennies and watch him turn into a useful player. Some people on here wrote off a guy like Puljujarvi who is looking pretty good for the Oilers now. He was drafted over 5 years ago… that isn’t really giving up on a prospect early. If they don’t have a really good idea what they have in a player by then… that is an issue. There will occasionally be exceptions… but there were no glimpses that Juolevi could be more than a replaceable 3rd pairing D as an expected upside . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 4 hours ago, Provost said: He was drafted over 5 years ago… that isn’t really giving up on a prospect early. If they don’t have a really good idea what they have in a player by then… that is an issue. There will occasionally be exceptions… but there were no glimpses that Juolevi could be more than a replaceable 3rd pairing D as an expected upside . …and out of that same level of achievement, Benning turned Juolevi into a very serviceable 4C. Good job Benning. Lammikko is very present on the ice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 11 hours ago, Me_ said: …and out of that same level of achievement, Benning turned Juolevi into a very serviceable 4C. Good job Benning. Lammikko is very present on the ice. I definately look at this at maybe Benning's learning? He took so long with Virtanen to the point of getting absolutely nothing for him so maybe he looked at that as a cue to trade Juolevi? Who knows in the end, but at least we can't blame Benning for this trade in my opinion. I would have loved Juolevi to have made it, and I wish him the best in Florida, but that wanting him to succeed here needs to eventually be outweighed by the realisation that he might not succeed here in the end. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 17 minutes ago, The Lock said: I definately look at this at maybe Benning's learning? He took so long with Virtanen to the point of getting absolutely nothing for him so maybe he looked at that as a cue to trade Juolevi? Who knows in the end, but at least we can't blame Benning for this trade in my opinion. I would have loved Juolevi to have made it, and I wish him the best in Florida, but that wanting him to succeed here needs to eventually be outweighed by the realisation that he might not succeed here in the end. Exactly. We’re going for the Cup; no longer rebuilding. Achieving that will take another three to five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 16 hours ago, Me_ said: …and out of that same level of achievement, Benning turned Juolevi into a very serviceable 4C. Good job Benning. Lammikko is very present on the ice. And maybe, just maybe, Juulsen will return to something close to the form he was showing prior to his injury issues with Montreal... regards, G. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: And maybe, just maybe, Juulsen will return to something close to the form he was showing prior to his injury issues with Montreal... regards, G. Double win for a chump. I wonder if Juolevi was the gamer we’re all talked about a while ago… Edited October 22, 2021 by Me_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Me_ said: Double win for a chump. I wonder if Juolevi was the gamer we’re all talked about a while ago… Well, by the look s of things, he wasn't going to get that chance here, so I suppose it's just as well that he was traded. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: Well, by the look s of things, he wasn't going to get that chance here, so I suppose it's just as well that he was traded. regards, G. He wasn’t going to get that chance because he failed to show up when opportunity was given to him. It’s not that hard to comprehend. OEL, Hughes, Myers, Poolman, Rathbone, Schenn, Burroughs, Hunt, Tanev, Benn, Edler, Hamonic, Rafferty, Schmidt, Stetcher and Fantenberg, we’re all better than Juolevi. Edited October 23, 2021 by Me_ 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Me_ said: He wasn’t going to get that chance because he failed to show up when opportunity was given to him. It’s not that hard to comprehend. OEL, Hughes, Myers, Poolman, Rathbone, Schenn, Burroughs, Hunt, Tanev, Benn, Edler, Hamonic, Rafferty, Schmidt, Stetcher and Fantenberg, we’re all better than Juolevi. People seem to revel in this one instance. Maybe one additional zoom on the image might have helped your point just a bit better, or not. You also list off 8 guys who haven't been with the team in a while, not sure why you'd include them other than it looks more impressive to have lots of names on your list. Come to think of it, some of those guys look like they would have been a better option than Rathbone. Over the pre-season Juolevi played fairly well (from what I recall), not a flashy offensive presence, but sound defensively. He was given only three games in which to "show up", and from what I remember, he usually had most of his TOI in the Canucks' end of the ice. By the looks of it, the fix was in, and I suspect that management/coaching had already decided to move on from Juolevi. Cool, this is what they are paid to do, and we all live with the results of those decisions. On the other hand, Rathbone (who was the preferred d-man candidate) had one good offensive game, and was quiet after that, even though he was given seven games in which to show up. He was not overly impressive as far as his defensive play, although he did turn a couple of good plays, which over the course of a game were often outweighed by the defensive gaffs he created.. The d-men who actually played in this season's pre-season - outside of having the good fortune to get a goal, Rathbone's offensive production hasn't looked that great. Even Bowey's points look better. G A TP +/- hughes 1 - 2 - 3 - -1 rathbone 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 * 7 games ekl 0 - 2 - 2 - +3 bowey 0 - 1 - 1 - +2 burroughs 0 - 1 - 1 - -2 juolevi 0 - 1 - 1 - -2 poolman 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 woo 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 myers 0 - 0 - 0 - +3 schenn 0 - 0 - 0 - -2 hunt 0 - 0 - 0 - -3 Anyhoo, it will be interesting to see how all of this turns out. *Serious question, one which I've asked previously: what does anyone see as Rathbone's future with this team? Is Rathbone going to be a bottom pairing guy for the next several years (until Ekman-Larsson's contract expires in six years, or maybe he agrees to a trade), Or does Rathbone get traded for something? And wouldn't it bake your noodle if it was revealed that the Canucks had tried to move Rathbone, but there weren't any takers, and Juolevi was the guy for whom someone made an offer. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gollumpus said: People seem to revel in this one instance. Maybe one additional zoom on the image might have helped your point just a bit better, or not. You also list off 8 guys who haven't been with the team in a while, not sure why you'd include them other than it looks more impressive to have lots of names on your list. Come to think of it, some of those guys look like they would have been a better option than Rathbone. Over the pre-season Juolevi played fairly well (from what I recall), not a flashy offensive presence, but sound defensively. He was given only three games in which to "show up", and from what I remember, he usually had most of his TOI in the Canucks' end of the ice. By the looks of it, the fix was in, and I suspect that management/coaching had already decided to move on from Juolevi. Cool, this is what they are paid to do, and we all live with the results of those decisions. On the other hand, Rathbone (who was the preferred d-man candidate) had one good offensive game, and was quiet after that, even though he was given seven games in which to show up. He was not overly impressive as far as his defensive play, although he did turn a couple of good plays, which over the course of a game were often outweighed by the defensive gaffs he created.. The d-men who actually played in this season's pre-season - outside of having the good fortune to get a goal, Rathbone's offensive production hasn't looked that great. Even Bowey's points look better. G A TP +/- hughes 1 - 2 - 3 - -1 rathbone 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 * 7 games ekl 0 - 2 - 2 - +3 bowey 0 - 1 - 1 - +2 burroughs 0 - 1 - 1 - -2 juolevi 0 - 1 - 1 - -2 poolman 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 woo 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 myers 0 - 0 - 0 - +3 schenn 0 - 0 - 0 - -2 hunt 0 - 0 - 0 - -3 Anyhoo, it will be interesting to see how all of this turns out. *Serious question, one which I've asked previously: what does anyone see as Rathbone's future with this team? Is Rathbone going to be a bottom pairing guy for the next several years (until Ekman-Larsson's contract expires in six years, or maybe he agrees to a trade), Or does Rathbone get traded for something? And wouldn't it bake your noodle if it was revealed that the Canucks had tried to move Rathbone, but there weren't any takers, and Juolevi was the guy for whom someone made an offer. regards, G. All names of defensemen stated, played in Vancouver during Juolevi’s development. Edited October 23, 2021 by Me_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: And wouldn't it bake your noodle if it was revealed that the Canucks had tried to move Rathbone, but there weren't any takers, and Juolevi was the guy for whom someone made an offer. Rathbone is waiver exempt so there was no need to move him. They could simply send him to the AHL to develope further. But if you truly believe that Rathbone doesn't have value around the NHL I would love to know what strain you are smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV. Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 #WeAreAllCanucks until somebody departs the team. Then, we trash them.. Makes you wonder.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckleHorse Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, AV. said: #WeAreAllCanucks until somebody departs the team. Then, we trash them.. Makes you wonder.. Once they leave they’re dead to me! Edited October 23, 2021 by CanuckleHorse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 20 minutes ago, coryberg said: Rathbone is waiver exempt so there was no need to move him. They could simply send him to the AHL to develope further. But if you truly believe that Rathbone doesn't have value around the NHL I would love to know what strain you are smoking. I'm well aware of Rathbone's waiver exempt status, it was one of the reasons that I suggested that the team put him in the AHL at the start of the season so that Juolevi could get a few games at the NHL level to "show up". Perhaps Juolevi was injured/still not recovered from Covid, which might be why he only got 3 pre-season games. Florida has him on their injured reserve list. My suggestion regarding trading Rathbone had something to do with the idea that was floating around, that he could be moved in order to acquire a RD, which/is a position of need. As to his value around the league, on what are you basing your assessment of Rathbone's value? His numbers haven't been that impressive, on either side of the puck. He can skate well, and he does recognize when he's made a mistake, and might be starting to remember not to make those errors. So, as to my question above: what do you see in the future for Rathbone? Does he stay with the Canucks for the next 6 years as a bottom pairing guy (with a move higher should there be injuries to Ekman-Larsson or Hughes)? Or does Rathbone get traded? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 41 minutes ago, Me_ said: Nah, you need pages of these images, going ever closer. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 7 minutes ago, CanuckleHorse said: Once they leave they’re dead to me! The way some people talk about certain owners/managers/coaches/players around here, they're dead to them while they are still here........ regards, G. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV. Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 37 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: The way some people talk about certain owners/managers/coaches/players around here, they're dead to them while they are still here........ regards, G. You see. there's this thing called consistency...nah, nvm. 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