Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 30,017
- 25,414
Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi, Pt. V
- Thread starter Zombotron
- Start date
- Status
TruKnyte
On the wagon
VC
Registered User
Sergachev is kind of what I though he would be, a toolsy productive defensemen that you wished had a better toolbox. I thought Juolevi would have been the safer, less productive but better overall defensemen. Olli hasn't lived up to that... yet.
I'm guessing there's a word somewhere in there that doesn't represent your thinking. I didn't go back over your earlier posts but am merely commenting on the wording of this one.
Saying that because "a player" scored some number of points in junior and was successful in the NHL means that another player with those points in junior is likely to be successful at a higher level because another player with the same junior scoring is likely to be successful in the NHL is arguing in favour of making conclusions based on a sample size of 1. I'd be very surprised if that's what you intended to argue.
To take that to the absurd, it could then be argued that a player who scored over 100 points in major junior in two consecutive seasons is unlikely to achieve success in the NHL because Brandon Kozun didn't.
Dab
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 3,193
- 3,001
1440
Registered User
- Feb 20, 2013
- 502
- 1,068
Let me say at first that this will be the last I post on this topic since it is a semantic argument and I feel as though I am just introducing a bunch of white noise to the thread.
It sure seems that one would have to make a very perverse reading of what I have said in order to assume that I imply one to one absolute correlation.
Such a method of argument is not constructive, even in more strict arenas of discourse (ie: legal writ). The Clinton impeachment is a good pop-culture example of this. It was determined that no reasonable person should assume that the phrase "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" meant "sexual relations" in a definition that excluded oral sex. So while Clinton did not necessarily explicitly lie, he was at the very least perverting the common interpretation of his own words, which is a form of perjury. What you are doing is similar.
Just in looking at the section of my post says: "history says that Olli will be able too" there are two clues that I do not imply absolute certainty. One is that the word "will" refers to what history says. Because history is past and thus certain, the use of the word "will", which suggests certainty, is merited even when what history wills is not necessarily certain. Take this recent article as an example: Why history says Notre Dame will rise again here, the phrase "history says the Notre Dame will rise again" is used to specify a positive likelihood in a strong, argumentative sense, rather than in absolute certainty. The juxtaposition of the certain past (history) and the uncertain future (will) should be one clue as to why the reader might guess that the author implies only a strong likelihood, not a certainty that this cathedral will be rebuilt. The next clue is that the words "be able" are used. Think of how the meaning of the phrase "history says the Notre Dame will be able to rise again" differs from the original. We have introduced a human element, and thus uncertainty into the mix. Perhaps the Parisian diocese, being french, will forego its abilities to rebuild in favour of sitting around drinking cafe au lait and smoking Du Mauriers.
I should certainly not be remiss to state that Juolevi will be able to succeed, he has the ability, but desire may be more in question.
Thank-you, I see what you mean. I can guess what the disconnect is.
"because a player put up 100 points in junior and is successful at the nhl level another player putting up those same points in junior will likely be successful as well"
There likely is a disconnect between what his "a" means (one single player?), and what my "a" means (a generalized player). I could have been more specific and said "a given player" but I didn't want to alter the original quote too much.
As an example, take the phrase "A dog is a good companion". Here it should be obvious that the meaning is not that one specific dog is a good friend, but that in general, a given dog is a good companion.
In such light, it should make sense that "a player" could very well be replaced by "a given player" as though that single player is representative of a larger pool of equivalent players.
It sure seems that one would have to make a very perverse reading of what I have said in order to assume that I imply one to one absolute correlation.
Such a method of argument is not constructive, even in more strict arenas of discourse (ie: legal writ). The Clinton impeachment is a good pop-culture example of this. It was determined that no reasonable person should assume that the phrase "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" meant "sexual relations" in a definition that excluded oral sex. So while Clinton did not necessarily explicitly lie, he was at the very least perverting the common interpretation of his own words, which is a form of perjury. What you are doing is similar.
Just in looking at the section of my post says: "history says that Olli will be able too" there are two clues that I do not imply absolute certainty. One is that the word "will" refers to what history says. Because history is past and thus certain, the use of the word "will", which suggests certainty, is merited even when what history wills is not necessarily certain. Take this recent article as an example: Why history says Notre Dame will rise again here, the phrase "history says the Notre Dame will rise again" is used to specify a positive likelihood in a strong, argumentative sense, rather than in absolute certainty. The juxtaposition of the certain past (history) and the uncertain future (will) should be one clue as to why the reader might guess that the author implies only a strong likelihood, not a certainty that this cathedral will be rebuilt. The next clue is that the words "be able" are used. Think of how the meaning of the phrase "history says the Notre Dame will be able to rise again" differs from the original. We have introduced a human element, and thus uncertainty into the mix. Perhaps the Parisian diocese, being french, will forego its abilities to rebuild in favour of sitting around drinking cafe au lait and smoking Du Mauriers.
I should certainly not be remiss to state that Juolevi will be able to succeed, he has the ability, but desire may be more in question.
Thank-you, I see what you mean. I can guess what the disconnect is.
"because a player put up 100 points in junior and is successful at the nhl level another player putting up those same points in junior will likely be successful as well"
There likely is a disconnect between what his "a" means (one single player?), and what my "a" means (a generalized player). I could have been more specific and said "a given player" but I didn't want to alter the original quote too much.
As an example, take the phrase "A dog is a good companion". Here it should be obvious that the meaning is not that one specific dog is a good friend, but that in general, a given dog is a good companion.
In such light, it should make sense that "a player" could very well be replaced by "a given player" as though that single player is representative of a larger pool of equivalent players.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
*Cautiously pokes head in*
Did I hallucinate last night or something?
Did I hallucinate last night or something?
Juolevi was confirmed by Benning on SN650 that Juolevi is recovered and should get green light to begin skating next week.
IF true, and Tryamkin and Juolevi were able to become legit NHLers, then the blue line doesn’t look as bad.
We’d gad Tryamkin, Hughes, Juolevi, Stecher, Hutton, and potentially Woo coming down the pipeline. Couple that with a few free agent or trade acquisitions and we may be able to cobble something decent together. We would need some big time luck though on one of these guys developing very well otherwise we’d still be lacking a legit number 1.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Let’s see Joulevi defend adequately at the AHL level before pencilling him in the Canucks lineup.
Last edited:
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,138
- 15,990
After so much time off, Juolevi is definitely going to start in the AHL next year...Have him play 20+ minutes a night,and hopefully have him up around Christmas/New Year.
Tryamkin would have spent 3 years playing in an inferior league..So it will be interesting to see if there has been any development in his game since he left?
If we sign Karlsson, trade for Subban and if Hughes turns out to be as great as everyone hopes he does and if Tryamkin comes back and turns into the 2nd coming of Chara and if Juolevi will justify the Lidstrom comments that Benning made, we will have one of the greatest defense corps of all time.
If we sign Karlsson, trade for Subban and if Hughes turns out to be as great as everyone hopes he does and if Tryamkin comes back and turns into the 2nd coming of Chara and if Juolevi will justify the Lidstrom comments that Benning made, we will have one of the greatest defense corps of all time.
Haha I get it... And, I too have attacked “potential line up” attempts. But, it is nice to at least have some seemingly viable young prospects in the pipe line. I fully expect only a couple to really work out, and hopefully add a couple more through trade and UFA, and that is enough.
Bitz and Bites
Registered User
If we sign Karlsson, trade for Subban and if Hughes turns out to be as great as everyone hopes he does and if Tryamkin comes back and turns into the 2nd coming of Chara and if Juolevi will justify the Lidstrom comments that Benning made, we will have one of the greatest defense corps of all time.
Don’t forget about Jett Woo becoming the next Scott Stevens,that should round out things nicely.
Whatever....I'd still rather have Matthew Tkachuk in the lineup. Then all this talk about Zucker or a half-dozen other scoring wingers the Canucks are being linked to this off-season, might not be so desperate.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
We need another D more than another winger. I still have hope OJ can turn into at least a #4. Sure, I’d prefer both but I’m easy to please.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 23,136
- 6,812
Assuming we drafted Tkachuk, I'd imagine you'd basically be picking between him and Boeser this offseason, and moving the other guy for a defenseman. I realize they play opposite wings, but they're both going to get $8M+ AAV on long-term deals. I'd think you'd probably want to trade one for an equivalent young defenseman and rotate some of that salary to the blue line.
In terms of Juolevi, let's just try and get this guy a full season. We have no idea what we have because he's played a grand total of 56 league games in the past two years. Hopefully he can actually stay healthy because there's a chance he could develop into a second-pairing PP specialist that plays sheltered minutes.
The Canucks have $30m in cap space. Having two young wingers who are barely 22 with a the capability of scoring 35-45 goals a season is a problem? Why would you even think if getting rid of either one?
Frankly I'd rather have Tkachuk at $8m a season than Jeff Skinner who just got $9m out of the Sabres.
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,138
- 15,990
It's hard to believe that he's still got two more years to go on his ELC.....and he is only 6 months older than Elias Pettersson.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
It's weird isn't it? Tkachuk is only 6 months older than Juolevi and has played 224 NHL games already.
mathonwy
Positively #toxic
- Jan 21, 2008
- 19,073
- 10,002
But getting ahead of myself is the only way I can stay sane knowing the reality of our management and ownership.
I heard OJ was the next coming of Nicklaus Lindstrom.
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,138
- 15,990
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,138
- 15,990
- Status
