Confirmed with Link: [VAN/FLA] Canucks acquire Juulsen, Lammikko for Olli Juolevi

[NYVanfan]

meh, as i recall it wasnt an outrageous pick at the time. wasn't OJ ranked very highly, after a huge performance at the World Jrs or something? I mean it wasnt like everyone had OJ ranked as a 3rd rounder or something ... whatever, win some lose some. They made up for it with EP, QH, BB picks.... couldda done better, but i dont see the point of continuing to dump on that pick

 

[Hit the post]

Just hearing him admit that they took based on positional need because Hamhuis and Bieksa were old is fantastic. Although it obviously was, nice to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Present top 4 blue line (before Hamonic “mysterious problem”) - rebuilding team after 7 years:
OEL….30
Myers….30
Hughes…21 (turns 22 tomorrow)
Hamonic…31

Top 4 back then - old, past their prime roster:
Tanev….24
Edler….28
Hamhuis…31
Bieksa….33

**** off DimJim.

Icing in cake, they traded for that 30+ year old defenseman & top 6 winger and gave up a 1st round pick this off-season because well, I guess they don’t need the pick to draft a guy based on need.

 

[MarkMM]

A D man (or a Center) carries more currency than a RW, and Benning wanted a C (which he got the following year) or a D....I preferred Tkachuk over OJ, (actually I as fully stoked to get PLD)...Juolevi was considered the best D man at the draft...Nobody would have guessed at the time, that he would be D+5 and still not be able to make the team.

I agree all else being equal D and C has greater value, but it just seems obvious at the time (and the reactions from people when the selection was made) that there was enough difference in the abilities of Tkachuk vs Juolevi that was more than enough to overcome the positional premium. I wanted a defenceman at the time but when Tkachuk fell to us it seemed like a pretty easy no brainer to go for a defenceman another time.

 

[MarkMM]

meh, as i recall it wasnt an outrageous pick at the time. wasn't OJ ranked very highly, after a huge performance at the World Jrs or something? I mean it wasnt like everyone had OJ ranked as a 3rd rounder or something ... whatever, win some lose some. They made up for it with EP, QH, BB picks.... couldda done better, but i dont see the point of continuing to dump on that pick

I think it wasn't so much where Juolevi was drafted as much as it was that Tkachuk had fallen to us, so even if Juolevi was arguably on par value for where he was rated, we gave up great value in Tkachuk.

 

[DFAC]

 

[Hit the post]

But Gillis!

 

[Pip]

Yeah it did with Elias Pettersson for sure..He wasn’t BPA..

Not sure you know what BPA means!

 

[Hit the post]

Not sure you know what BPA means!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

 

[jd22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

Wow, an honest chuckle. HF doesn't give me those too often anymore. Well done

 

[Lindgren]

I think the Canucks won the trade. I think that Juulsen will end up playing more NHL games more effectively than Juolevi (a very low bar), and even if he doesn't he'll be a favourite in Abbotsford. Lammiko will fill in at 4th C until/if Sutter comes back. How big a win is it? Tiny.

 

[bobbyb2009]

Present top 4 blue line (before Hamonic “mysterious problem”) - rebuilding team after 7 years:
OEL….30
Myers….30
Hughes…21 (turns 22 tomorrow)
Hamonic…31

Top 4 back then - old, past their prime roster:
Tanev….24 *wrong 25 (turning 26 in 9 weeks)
Edler….28 *wrong 30
Hamhuis…31 *wrong 33 (turning 34 in 8 weeks)
Bieksa….33 *wrong 35

**** off DimJim.

Icing in cake, they traded for that 30+ year old defenseman & top 6 winger and gave up a 1st round pick this off-season because well, I guess they don’t need the pick to draft a guy based on need.

You did some work for this troll, well done. It got me riled up. But why exaggerate. Am I missing something?

Let's take today's date and compare to the same date the day Day Juolevi was drafted (July 2016) and then run that year to Oct 13. Unless I am doing the math wrong, I have to wonder why you decided to change the ages?

Tanev (Dec 20, 89) was 25 not 24 (and about to turn 26, In his prime)
Edler (April 26, 86) was 30 not 28
Hamhuis (Dec 13, 82) was 33 not 31 (and about to turn 34)
Bieksa (June 16, 81) was 35 not 33

Having said that, on this section, I absolutely agree, **** off DimJim

 

[Cancuks]

We could have traded the #5 pick or drafted Tkachuk and traded him for a bona fide top 4 dman. Instead Dim Jim threw poop at the wall and hoped after 5 years of developing it would stick.

 

[4Twenty]

You did some work for this troll, well done. It got me riled up. But why exaggerate. Am I missing something?

Let's take today's date and compare to the same date the day Day Juolevi was drafted (July 2016) and then run that year to Oct 13. Unless I am doing the math wrong, I have to wonder why you decided to change the ages?

Tanev (Dec 20, 89) was 25 not 24 (and about to turn 26, In his prime)
Edler (April 26, 86) was 30 not 28
Hamhuis (Dec 13, 82) was 33 not 31 (and about to turn 34)
Bieksa (June 16, 81) was 35 not 33

Having said that, on this section, I absolutely agree, **** off DimJim

Pretty clear the dude meant the D that was inherited in 2014.

 

[bobbyb2009]

Pretty clear the dude meant the D that was inherited in 2014.

But was commenting on the 2016 selection of a player based on the need of an aging defence. Should have used the ages based off of that decision date, not 2 years earlier!

 

[racerjoe]

But was commenting on the 2016 selection of a player based on the need of an aging defence. Should have used the ages based off of that decision date, not 2 years earlier!

Neither he or the poster he was replying to mention Joulevi.

 

[4Twenty]

But was commenting on the 2016 selection of a player based on the need of an aging defence. Should have used the ages based off of that decision date, not 2 years earlier!

Probably should’ve included newly acquired 24 years young Erik Gudbranson if they were meaning 2016.

The point was pretty clear especially when they said run it back 7 years.

 

[Melvin]

Every time I see Lammiko I think Lemmiwinks.

 

[bobbyb2009]

Probably should’ve included newly acquired 24 years young Erik Gudbranson if they were meaning 2016.

The point was pretty clear especially when they said run it back 7 years.

Completely Disagree. YMMV but it wasn't the point being made. The entire post was about the stupid selection of Juolevi and DimJim decision to select him based on positional need (and I agreed then and now, it was remarkably stupid), the need being an aging defence core. That decision based off of the aging core at the time of the decision being made (July 2016).

It was disingenuous to use a 2014 date to remark on a 2016 decision. End stop.

Bad post using data that was exaggerated for his purpose. Incluing the "trading for a 30+ defender" who had turned 30 a few weeks before the trade.

 

[Breakers]

I like what Ray Ferraro said about Juolevi pick shows a big failure in the interview process.
Scouting on skill can be tough we he was playing with two really good teams.

they didn’t ask the right questions which could help identify his lack severe lack of motivation because he didn’t improve at all since being drafted.

 

[4Twenty]

Completely Disagree. YMMV but it wasn't the point being made. The entire post was about the stupid selection of Juolevi and DimJim decision to select him based on positional need (and I agreed then and now, it was remarkably stupid), the need being an aging defence core. That decision based off of the aging core at the time of the decision being made (July 2016).

It was disingenuous to use a 2014 date to remark on a 2016 decision. End stop.

Bad post using data that was exaggerated for his purpose. Incluing the "trading for a 30+ defender" who had turned 30 a few weeks before the trade.

It’s pretty clear a play on how the 2014 group has been presented here by a certain faction.

 

[Angry Little Elf]

Every time I see Lammiko I think Lemmiwinks.

Whatever happened to that guy?

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Yeah it did with Elias Pettersson for sure..He wasn’t BPA..

Looking at the metrics, he absolutely was. (Look at the misconduct predraft article; it wasn’t even close and an argument he was exactly what he turned into)

looking at anecdotal analysts, it was hit or miss.

 

[Hit the post]

Wow, an honest chuckle. HF doesn't give me those too often anymore. Well done

I throw so much **** on the wall, eventually something sticks/is amusing.

 

[racerjoe]

Completely Disagree. YMMV but it wasn't the point being made. The entire post was about the stupid selection of Juolevi and DimJim decision to select him based on positional need (and I agreed then and now, it was remarkably stupid), the need being an aging defence core. That decision based off of the aging core at the time of the decision being made (July 2016).

It was disingenuous to use a 2014 date to remark on a 2016 decision. End stop.

Bad post using data that was exaggerated for his purpose. Incluing the "trading for a 30+ defender" who had turned 30 a few weeks before the trade.

I know you want to just ignore my comment cause it ruins your point, but where did the poster or the poster he was replying to mention Joulevi?

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Present top 4 blue line (before Hamonic “mysterious problem”) - rebuilding team after 7 years:
OEL….30
Myers….30
Hughes…21 (turns 22 tomorrow)
Hamonic…31

Top 4 back then - old, past their prime roster:
Tanev….24
Edler….28
Hamhuis…31
Bieksa….33

**** off DimJim.

Icing in cake, they traded for that 30+ year old defenseman & top 6 winger and gave up a 1st round pick this off-season because well, I guess they don’t need the pick to draft a guy based on need.

3 year window to win the Cup before we have to completely rebuild lol. The bright spot is Hughes & Pettersson and they’re already 22 & 23 respectively.