Player Discussion: Olli Juolevi | III

[WTG]

Continue

Click to read more...

 

[Addison Rae]

That's a broad generalization of a player's value by lumping them all into "first line wingers" and "#2 D men".

Edler is a #2 D man. Could he get us Tarasenko? Wheeler? Panarin? Pacioretti? Hall? Voracek? Couture? Ehlers?


If so then we are really making a mistake by sitting on him and not trying to upgrade our forward group significantly.

that's fair, i should have worded it a bit differently and suggested that #2 dman and 55/65 point top line wingers usually are quite equal in value based on the marketplace.

don't exactly love the edler comparison due to the difference in age, i consider tanev a #2 dman and i think it's fair to suggest if he were the same age as guys like hall, pacioretty, landeskog etc he'd hold similar value.

 

[Numba9]

That's a broad generalization of a player's value by lumping them all into "first line wingers" and "#2 D men".

Edler is a #2 D man. Could he get us Tarasenko? Wheeler? Panarin? Pacioretti? Hall? Voracek? Couture? Ehlers?


If so then we are really making a mistake by sitting on him and not trying to upgrade our forward group significantly.

Depends on how you classify a number 1 defenseman. The Canucks don't have a true number 1 defenseman...If they did Tanev would be number 2 and yes he can definitely fetch some of those players.

 

[racerjoe]

His point was that both Edler and Tanev are number 2 defensemen, there is a big value difference there, just like there is a big difference in top line wingers. I mean in their prime who held more value Burrows or Daniel Sedin?

Also I am amused someone took my Gretzky comment so seriously.

 

[canwincup]

that's fair, i should have worded it a bit differently and suggested that #2 dman and 55/65 point top line wingers usually are quite equal in value based on the marketplace.

don't exactly love the edler comparison due to the difference in age, i consider tanev a #2 dman and i think it's fair to suggest if he were the same age as guys like hall, pacioretty, landeskog etc he'd hold similar value.

Edler at his best when he was 25/26 was a damn good player, he's still really underrated around here.

 

[canwincup]

His point was that both Edler and Tanev are number 2 defensemen, there is a big value difference there, just like there is a big difference in top line wingers. I mean in their prime who held more value Burrows or Daniel Sedin?

Also I am amused someone took my Gretzky comment so seriously.

Edler when he was younger was a much better defenseman than Tanev currently is. Is age not a factor, it's unfair to compare a 30 year old Edler to 25 year old Hall.

 

[CanaFan]

that's fair, i should have worded it a bit differently and suggested that #2 dman and 55/65 point top line wingers usually are quite equal in value based on the marketplace.

don't exactly love the edler comparison due to the difference in age, i consider tanev a #2 dman and i think it's fair to suggest if he were the same age as guys like hall, pacioretty, landeskog etc he'd hold similar value.

That's the blurriness though in calling someone a "#2" as it doesn't really speak to how good they are, just that they are used a certain way by their team. We've already seen how labels were used to sell us on Gudbranson ("he's a #4", "played most minutes in playoffs") and yet his actual play has been abysmal.

Depending on how good Juolevi and Tkachuk become then sure, I can see a case were Juolevi is worth more than Tkachuk. But not by "default" by virtue of one bring a 2D and the other a 1LW.

 

[CanaFan]

Edler when he was younger was a much better defenseman than Tanev currently is. Is age not a factor, it's unfair to compare a 30 year old Edler to 25 year old Hall.

Be that as it may, Edler is still easily a "2D" in terms of quality so should be fair value for those players, no?

 

[canwincup]

Be that as it may, Edler is still easily a "2D" in terms of quality so should be fair value for those players, no?

So age doesn't play a factor in trade value? Seems legit. Edler 4/5 years ago absolutely could return a top line winger.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Also I am amused someone took my Gretzky comment so seriously.

wasn't your intended point that it was as ridiculous for me to attack tkachuk for his team's playoff record for his entire career as it was to attack gretzky for his post oilers playoff record?

because that certainly seems like an attempt by you to make a serious point and to ridicule my point.

or perhaps you can explain the jokey part i was not supposed to take seriously?

also, please explain how i took it "so seriously"? my response was brief and flippant.

 

[CanaFan]

So age doesn't play a factor in trade value? Seems legit. Edler 4/5 years ago absolutely could return a top line winger.

Edler 4-5 years ago put up more points and was probably closer to a 1D than a 2D. That isn't age - plenty of D remain effective past 30 - so much as it is performance. If today's Edler had 25 on his birth certificate instead of 30, I don't think he brings back most of those players.

 

[canwincup]

Edler 4-5 years ago put up more points and was probably closer to a 1D than a 2D. That isn't age - plenty of D remain effective past 30 - so much as it is performance. If today's Edler had 25 on his birth certificate instead of 30, I don't think he brings back most of those players.

Larsson brought back Hall? I think Edler and Larssson are comparable, Edler might even be better.

 

[CanaFan]

Larsson brought back Hall? I think Edler and Larssson are comparable, Edler might even be better.

Very unique circumstances involved in that trade. The pressure of 10 years of no playoffs, a neglect of building a defense for forwards, the McDavid pressure. Also just a poor value trade all around, which mirrors the deal one year earlier for Reinhart.

I don't think it is representative of the rest of the league so much as a desperate, inept GM.

 

[racerjoe]

Edler when he was younger was a much better defenseman than Tanev currently is. Is age not a factor, it's unfair to compare a 30 year old Edler to 25 year old Hall.

It's not the point. The point was they are both #2 dmen.

wasn't your intended point that it was as ridiculous for me to attack tkachuk for his team's playoff record for his entire career as it was to attack gretzky for his post oilers playoff record?

because that certainly seems like an attempt by you to make a serious point and to ridicule my point.

or perhaps you can explain the jokey part i was not supposed to take seriously?

also, please explain how i took it "so seriously"? my response was brief and flippant.

I was using sarcasm to show how absurd your statement was that even the GREATEST player of all time couldn't do what you said. To point out that hockey is a team game.

are you seriously comparing gretzky's playoff record to keith tkachuk's?

good luck with that analogy.

That sounds like a serious reply to me. You even asked if I was being serious which other posters could clearly see I was not.

 

[MS]

Edler is far closer to a 1D now than he was 5 years ago.

5 years ago he was a 2nd pairing defender who scored 25 points/year on a stacked PP to make his numbers look good. He's a far better overall player now.

 

[Gaunce4gm]

Edler is far closer to a 1D now than he was 5 years ago.

5 years ago he was a 2nd pairing defender who scored 25 points/year on a stacked PP to make his numbers look good. He's a far better overall player now.

That would imply that he improved drastically between age 25 and 30... AND that he improved after playing 300 NHL games.

Don't be ridiculous. We all know that once youre 24 or have played 300 games you're done improving. Gudbranson and Hutton are both exactly how they will be in 5 years. Stecher and Tryamkin have got 2 years left before they're frozen in development, even Tanev hasn't improved at all since his 24th birthday...

 

[drax0s]

 

[krutovsdonut]

I was using sarcasm to show how absurd your statement was that even the GREATEST player of all time couldn't do what you said. To point out that hockey is a team game.

what do you mean by "couldn't do what i said"? all i said is i will have no regrets about not taking matt tkachuk if he leads calgary to the same success as his dad led his teams. the rest is on you.

and we disagree that it wrong to judge a captain or alt captain and all around key player on every team he was on for the fact those teams doing next to nothing in the playoffs in a 20 year career. hockey hall of fame voters judge players for things like that all the time.

and, since you really did double down and go there and once again compared tkachuk to "gretzky after the oilers" to show how "absurd" i am being, let's actually compare those two "careers".

tkachuk his entire career played 89 playoff games in 20 seasons. he got out of the first round twice with a good st louis he was parachuted into which had pronger for its captain. then pronger left.

after gretzky left the oilers he played 88 playoff games in 12 seasons. along the way, highlights included dragging the kings to the finals on his back, and taking the rangers to the conference finals as a 36 year old.

i like the bad half of gretzky's career a lot better

 

[krutovsdonut]

That sounds like a serious reply to me. You even asked if I was being serious which other posters could clearly see I was not.

so it's your view that me asking you if you are serious, constituted an indication i was taking you seriously?

not sure if you are serious.

not sure if that uncertainty makes me serious.

seriously confused.

 

[Addison Rae]

Edler at his best when he was 25/26 was a damn good player, he's still really underrated around here.

no edler was largely overrated back then, he was absolutely excellent in 2014/2015 and if he scored more points that year he should have received norris votes.

 

[Elitersson]

I came for Juolevi, but all this Edler arguing is even better

 

[krutovsdonut]

That would imply that he improved drastically between age 25 and 30... AND that he improved after playing 300 NHL games.

Don't be ridiculous. We all know that once youre 24 or have played 300 games you're done improving. Gudbranson and Hutton are both exactly how they will be in 5 years. Stecher and Tryamkin have got 2 years left before they're frozen in development, even Tanev hasn't improved at all since his 24th birthday...

i've really enjoyed sbisa's lack of improvement this season as a 26 year old 400 games into his career.

 

[Addison Rae]

That's the blurriness though in calling someone a "#2" as it doesn't really speak to how good they are, just that they are used a certain way by their team. We've already seen how labels were used to sell us on Gudbranson ("he's a #4", "played most minutes in playoffs") and yet his actual play has been abysmal.

Depending on how good Juolevi and Tkachuk become then sure, I can see a case were Juolevi is worth more than Tkachuk. But not by "default" by virtue of one bring a 2D and the other a 1LW.

i don't see why you're making this difficult. i'm simply suggesting the marketplace has showed that solid #2 dman and 55/65 point wingers are similar in value.

not sure how gudbranson is applicable to this, he was absolutely not a #4 dman and i've maintained that since we traded for him. usage has nothing to do with how i classify dman, i classify them by sheer results.

 

[CanaFan]

i don't see why you're making this difficult. i'm simply suggesting the marketplace has showed that solid #2 dman and 55/65 point wingers are similar in value.

I'm not being difficult, I am arguing against broad labels having any use in determining "value equivalence". There will be players regarded as a "2D" (which is technically just the second best defenseman on a team) who are worth a 55-65 point forward and times that they are not. It is too vague and simplistic to equate a label to another label. If you suggest specific players then I can say if I agree or not, but not based on the above.

not sure how gudbranson is applicable to this, he was absolutely not a #4 dman and i've maintained that since we traded for him. usage has nothing to do with how i classify dman, i classify them by sheer results.

He's relevant in showing the weakness of using labels like "2D" or "4D" to define a player's value. Gudbranson was widely argued as being a 4D in Florida and attempts to disagree were countered with counts of his minutes as validation of how good he was. It would have much more constructive to talk about Gudbranson the player, not broadly as a "4D" as a way of pegging his quality or value.

 

[Addison Rae]

again you're looking at usage while i'm looking at results. a player is not a #2 if he simply plays those minutes on a team, he's a #2 if he plays those minutes and gets good results. when i think of a #2 dman i think of guys like hjalmarsson, tanev, stralman etc and i absolutely believe those players have similar value to 55/65 point wingers like pacioretty, landeskog, marchand etc.