Value of: Juolevi, Olli
- Thread starter YP44
- Start date
The Moose is Loose
Registered User
Toughest part to me is to gauge what Vancouver would want. They should not want veterans as they are re-tooling but then again they just signed Roussel
The Moose is Loose
Registered User
The fan base would prefer futures/prospects
But it’s tough to tell what their front office would actually get
HockeyGuruPitka
Registered User
I dont think they'll have any interest in trading him. Develop him and hope he turns into a player.
Lol of course you have a hard time gauging his value if you just ask how was his developpement going.
PetterssonSimp
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2008
- 7,374
- 917
Sadly he’s still #2 on the defence core prospect pool. So even though he’s not very good and won’t ever impact the NHL like players chosen around him in the draft, he’s going to be relied upon to be at least an NHL #5 for Vancouver by next season when the Canucks won’t have MDZ, Pouliot and probably Edler/or Hutton not return to its defence core.
The only type of deal that makes sense to send him out is the worst type of trade for Vancouver. Accelerating the rebuild type of targeting a 22-25 year old now defenceman.
The only type of deal that makes sense to send him out is the worst type of trade for Vancouver. Accelerating the rebuild type of targeting a 22-25 year old now defenceman.
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
- Jun 3, 2011
- 10,959
- 653
I don't see a reason for Vancouver to trade him, unless it's a situation where another GM loves him and overpays. They need defensive prospects and he's one of their best ones.
GoodbyeLuongo
Registered User
Inb4 the basesless posts about how he’s trash. Juolevi’s plus one year wasn’t great but he was really strong last year in Finland and has looked good so far in Utica. He’s really not available by any means.
Nucker42
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2011
- 2,540
- 1,800
Value would be tough. Slightly less than Sargachev? Talking about a top 5 pick in his 1st season in North America.
I think his value gets skewed sometimes because fans are pissed the Canucks could have taken Tkachuk. Obviously different players but sometimes I think people de-value him because of it.
Juolevi has 6 or 7 points in 10 AHL games. Playing over 20 minutes a night and getting top PP time.
I'm not here saying that he's a Hedman or a Dahlan but.... I think he has top 2 potential.
I certainly think that Juolevi, Hughes, Brisebois, Woo and Tryamkin are the future.
Hughes is your #1.
Juolevi is your #2.
Tryamkin is your #3.
Woo is your #4.
Brisebois is your #5-6.
Canucks have been so thin for so many years on d prospects that dealing from this position would be totally counter productive.
I think his value gets skewed sometimes because fans are pissed the Canucks could have taken Tkachuk. Obviously different players but sometimes I think people de-value him because of it.
Juolevi has 6 or 7 points in 10 AHL games. Playing over 20 minutes a night and getting top PP time.
I'm not here saying that he's a Hedman or a Dahlan but.... I think he has top 2 potential.
I certainly think that Juolevi, Hughes, Brisebois, Woo and Tryamkin are the future.
Hughes is your #1.
Juolevi is your #2.
Tryamkin is your #3.
Woo is your #4.
Brisebois is your #5-6.
Canucks have been so thin for so many years on d prospects that dealing from this position would be totally counter productive.
skyo
Benning Squad
Canucks are rebuilding, are lacking quality D prospects, while Juolevi is developing really well in Utica, plus getting a lot of respect from the coach and GM on his progression.
All that means is the Canucks are developing him well and will not be moving him, he fits into the franchises rebuild timeline of bringing in all these youngsters these next few years, he'll for sure be a part of the future core Canucks.
All that means is the Canucks are developing him well and will not be moving him, he fits into the franchises rebuild timeline of bringing in all these youngsters these next few years, he'll for sure be a part of the future core Canucks.
Breakers
Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
I doubt he would garner a big return.
He isnt that good. His compete level is terrible.
He isnt that good. His compete level is terrible.
Offensively he's great, defensively he needs some time. If we call him up, I hope we have him with Tanev, as the two of them have the makings of a great pairing. Eventually Woo could take that RD spot over too.
His growth seems to come in spurts, but I'm holding out hope. I don't think he will have a Tkachuk like impact on his team but he could be a very good puck mover or offensive D for us.
As such I'm treating him as that, inspite of some development he needs. A good, young, top four LHD. We don't have a lot of reasons to trade him, so we won't unless there is a benefit to us. If you have an offer for a different kind of player, I'm sure we would listen.
His growth seems to come in spurts, but I'm holding out hope. I don't think he will have a Tkachuk like impact on his team but he could be a very good puck mover or offensive D for us.
As such I'm treating him as that, inspite of some development he needs. A good, young, top four LHD. We don't have a lot of reasons to trade him, so we won't unless there is a benefit to us. If you have an offer for a different kind of player, I'm sure we would listen.
Tkachuky
Registered User
You will hear people calling him a bust for the next few years... standard HF practice for players that take longer to develop.
Nucker42
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2011
- 2,540
- 1,800
Not sure most would agree there coach.
World Juniors was a top d man.
Was a top d man on his mens Finland team last year.
Playing as top d man in 1st North America season.
Sounds pretty "compete" to me.
What's your basis for flaming comment?
No point in moving him, unless someone overpays. The Canucks need D prospects, so trading one away isn't exactly a smart thing, especially when he's beginning to show promise.
