Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi

[mossey3535]

I think it's interesting that despite still having a realistic take on OJ and not declaring him a "bust" or whatever, the one thing that gets taken out of my post is that I mentioned he might have a videogame addiction. I did word the post saying "for whatever reason" since there are lots of other questions marks about him.

And no, it hasn't been proven or disproven either way. But I mentioned it because I find that as an actual factor amusing (and somewhat close to home). That wasn't supposed to be the point of the post, but oh well.

 

[DL44]

I think it's interesting that despite still having a realistic take on OJ and not declaring him a "bust" or whatever, the one thing that gets taken out of my post is that I mentioned he might have a videogame addiction. I did word the post saying "for whatever reason" since there are lots of other questions marks about him.

And no, it hasn't been proven or disproven either way. But I mentioned it because I find that as an actual factor amusing (and somewhat close to home). That wasn't supposed to be the point of the post, but oh well.

And you continue to perpetuate it.
You are what would be a [MOD] for purposefully perpetuating a such a false claim..... posting for attention. [MOD]

 

[sting101]

The battle over the perception of Juolevi has raged on, primarily, because certain individuals cannot admit that it's unlikely Juolevi meets or exceeds what Tkachuk has already done. That's it. If those individuals acknowledged this key point, there would be very little to debate. Everybody would recognize that Juolevi is behind, is likely to stay behind, and the hope would transfer to him becoming a serviceable top4 in isolation. Away from the comparison to Tkachuk. But they can't or won't, so it continues.

I respect your opinion Sting. You've made 2 key concessions here: 1) All things point to Tkachuk being the better pick and 2) Tkachuk was rated higher at the draft. Bravo, you've come farther than most on the other side of this debate. Now the last remaining point: With what we know of career trajectories, and with what Tkachuk and Juolevi have shown to date, do you think that it's _likely_ (probability) that Juolevi meets or exceeds the level of where Tkachuk is currently at? If you say yes, then you have to explain how without relying on non-linear development. That's wish-based thinking. It ignores all information in the interim. I'm speaking strictly about probability. If you say no, then we are in full agreement on these points and can move towards discussing how Juolevi is tracking in isolation.

On calling Juolevi a disappointment: He is, relative to his peers. He is, relative to his draft position. He is, relative to his potential at becoming a top2 Dman (he's not tracking like one). He's _not_, relative to his potential to become a top4 dman. Is that fair to say?

No I dont see Juolevi as a disappointment because he is 19 and had a fine pro season in Finland was outstanding in the u20's and since the day he was drafted i saw a frame and skating that needed some power and explosiveness and that was gonna take some time. Nothing has changed for me because after his first camp he looked like he needed a couple yrs. I could care less if a guy has a Cody Hodgson or Michael Dal Colle junior career because as we all know translating at the next levels is what matters and he hasn't had a fair shake yet.

examples of top3 defenseman(selected as high picks) that took a bit longer to have an impact: Ryan Suter, Alex Pietrangelo, Matt Dumba, Ryan Ellis, Dan Hamhuis, Ryan McDonagh, Jonas Brodin, Brent Seabrook, Jake Gardiner, Mike Matheson, Nik Kronwall, Brady Skjei, Mike Green, Matt Niskanen, Roman Josi and as you can see many of these are top pair and also it's important to take note of players that may have been in the NHL but were sheltered and liabilities but their teams were fine with them developing in the NHL because the AHL wasn't an option.

As i have said many times i believe he has an ability to raise his game and i have sighted many examples of players that duplicated their junior productivity in the NHL. i feel he has this capability. If he does he will be in the same neighborhood of the current Tkachuk version.

 

[CanaFan]

No I dont see Juolevi as a disappointment because he is 19 and had a fine pro season in Finland was outstanding in the u20's and since the day he was drafted i saw a frame and skating that needed some power and explosiveness and that was gonna take some time. Nothing has changed for me because after his first camp he looked like he needed a couple yrs. I could care less if a guy has a Cody Hodgson or Michael Dal Colle junior career because as we all know translating at the next levels is what matters and he hasn't had a fair shake yet.

examples of top3 defenseman(selected as high picks) that took a bit longer to have an impact: Ryan Suter, Alex Pietrangelo, Matt Dumba, Ryan Ellis, Dan Hamhuis, Ryan McDonagh, Jonas Brodin, Brent Seabrook, Jake Gardiner, Mike Matheson, Nik Kronwall, Brady Skjei, Mike Green, Matt Niskanen, Roman Josi and as you can see many of these are top pair and also it's important to take note of players that may have been in the NHL but were sheltered and liabilities but their teams were fine with them developing in the NHL because the AHL wasn't an option.

As i have said many times i believe he has an ability to raise his game and i have sighted many examples of players that duplicated their junior productivity in the NHL. i feel he has this capability. If he does he will be in the same neighborhood of the current Tkachuk version.

Only 4 of your examples of “high picks” were even drafted in the top 10 and only one was a top 5. Josi was a 2nd rounder. Suter also had the 2004-05 lockout keep him out of the NHL until his D+3.

Those were (mostly) 1st round picks, not high picks.

 

[DL44]

Reasons to be excited about Juolevi:

1. Winner. Has stepped up every post season or big moment of his young career.
2. Tools. Has a tall frame to grow into. Much needed new era required skating and mobility.
3. High IQ.
4. 5th overall pick... just joking.. Tkachuk.


No need to cover his cons... see previous 100 pages.

 

[CanaFan]

Reasons to be excited about Juolevi:

1. Winner. Has stepped up every post season or big moment of his young career.
2. Tools. Has a tall frame to grow into. Much needed new era required skating and mobility.
3. High IQ.
4. 5th overall pick... just joking.. Tkachuk.


No need to cover his cons... see previous 100 pages.

Cool, so exactly what people were saying 2 years ago. Nothing since then?

 

[alternate]

Only 4 of your examples of “high picks” were even drafted in the top 10 and only one was a top 5. Josi was a 2nd rounder. Suter also had the 2004-05 lockout keep him out of the NHL until his D+3.

Those were (mostly) 1st round picks, not high picks.

Yes, many early picks get rushed to the NHL because they get drafted by bad teams. And most top 5 dmen are physically mature. You are too distracted by draft position...if OJ was drafted 23OA and took till his D+4 to become a #2/3 22+min/20pt 5v5 staple for the next 10 years, does the value of this player decrease because he was taken 5OA?

Tkachuk missed 6 games in his rookie season. Missed 14 this season, including the final 12 with a concussion. Maybe if they were a playoff team he doesn't miss all 12, but not really the point. Tkachuk and Juolevi being of the same draft class doesn't mean they have the same potential for growth in front of them. Tkachuk doesn't have any "physical maturing" left to do, while OJ still does, and now Tkachuk has to prove he can physically hold up playing the way he needs to play to be successful.

The question "who will be better" isn't the relevant one to ask. Who will be more valuable is what's important. Keep in mind, Tkachuk's P/60 went from 2.6 in his rookie season, to 2.5 his sophomore year. His ACTUAL production went from 48 points, to 49 (projections don't get you into the playoffs). This doesn't mean Tkachuk isn't already a good player, or won't get better. But it does suggest that Tkachuk seeing big gains in his game isn't a foregone conclusion either. It's very possible that Tkachuk--who was always considered "NHL ready"--is already what he's going to be.

Tkachuk vs Juolevi isn't a decided case imo. If OJ becomes that #2/3 dman I describe above, he becomes more valuable than what Matthew Tkachuk is today. Tkachuk likely isn't a finished product either at this point, but he's likely a lot closer to his max ceiling.

 

[Icebreakers]

Yes, many early picks get rushed to the NHL because they get drafted by bad teams. And most top 5 dmen are physically mature. You are too distracted by draft position...if OJ was drafted 23OA and took till his D+4 to become a #2/3 22+min/20pt 5v5 staple for the next 10 years, does the value of this player decrease because he was taken 5OA?

Tkachuk missed 6 games in his rookie season. Missed 14 this season, including the final 12 with a concussion. Maybe if they were a playoff team he doesn't miss all 12, but not really the point. Tkachuk and Juolevi being of the same draft class doesn't mean they have the same potential for growth in front of them. Tkachuk doesn't have any "physical maturing" left to do, while OJ still does, and now Tkachuk has to prove he can physically hold up playing the way he needs to play to be successful.

The question "who will be better" isn't the relevant one to ask. Who will be more valuable is what's important. Keep in mind, Tkachuk's P/60 went from 2.6 in his rookie season, to 2.5 his sophomore year. His ACTUAL production went from 48 points, to 49 (projections don't get you into the playoffs). This doesn't mean Tkachuk isn't already a good player, or won't get better. But it does suggest that Tkachuk seeing big gains in his game isn't a foregone conclusion either. It's very possible that Tkachuk--who was always considered "NHL ready"--is already what he's going to be.

Tkachuk vs Juolevi isn't a decided case imo. If OJ becomes that #2/3 dman I describe above, he becomes more valuable than what Matthew Tkachuk is today. Tkachuk likely isn't a finished product either at this point, but he's likely a lot closer to his max ceiling.

If OJ was projected to be a 2/3 dman we wouldn't be sweating right now. The matter of the fact is he doesn't even project to be that right now.

 

[CanaFan]

Yes, many early picks get rushed to the NHL because they get drafted by bad teams. And most top 5 dmen are physically mature. You are too distracted by draft position...if OJ was drafted 23OA and took till his D+4 to become a #2/3 22+min/20pt 5v5 staple for the next 10 years, does the value of this player decrease because he was taken 5OA?

His value? No.

His cost? Hella yes.


I don't know what the rest of your post is going on about. I don't recall mentioning Matthew Tkachuk.

 

[Krnuckfan]

No I dont see Juolevi as a disappointment because he is 19 and had a fine pro season in Finland was outstanding in the u20's and since the day he was drafted i saw a frame and skating that needed some power and explosiveness and that was gonna take some time. Nothing has changed for me because after his first camp he looked like he needed a couple yrs. I could care less if a guy has a Cody Hodgson or Michael Dal Colle junior career because as we all know translating at the next levels is what matters and he hasn't had a fair shake yet.

examples of top3 defenseman(selected as high picks) that took a bit longer to have an impact: Ryan Suter, Alex Pietrangelo, Matt Dumba, Ryan Ellis, Dan Hamhuis, Ryan McDonagh, Jonas Brodin, Brent Seabrook, Jake Gardiner, Mike Matheson, Nik Kronwall, Brady Skjei, Mike Green, Matt Niskanen, Roman Josi and as you can see many of these are top pair and also it's important to take note of players that may have been in the NHL but were sheltered and liabilities but their teams were fine with them developing in the NHL because the AHL wasn't an option.

As i have said many times i believe he has an ability to raise his game and i have sighted many examples of players that duplicated their junior productivity in the NHL. i feel he has this capability. If he does he will be in the same neighborhood of the current Tkachuk version.

Alright, let's go through your list of examples of guys that took longer to have an impact.

• Ryan Suter: made the NHL in his d+3
• Pietrangelo: d+3
• Dumba: taste of the NHL in d+2, made the NHL d+3
• Ellis: split time between NHL/AHL in his d+3 and d+4, full time NHL d+5
• Hamhuis: d+3
• McDonaugh: split time between NHL/AHL in his d+4, full time NHL d+5
• Brodin: 45 games in the NHL in his d+2, full time NHL d+3
• Seabrook: d+3
• Gardiner: d+4
• Matheson: d+5
• Kronwal: d+7
• Skjej: d+5
• Green: taste of NHL in d+2, full time NHL d+3
  
• Niskanen: d+3
• Josi: d+4

Out of those 15 players you listed, 8 of them were in the NHL full time by their d+3. Juolevi isn't even on track to make the team this upcoming year which would be his d+3 year.

Bolded are the 7 other guys who took longer than d+3 to make the NHL full time. 11th overall, 12th overall, 17th overall, 23rd overall, 29th overall, 28th overall, 38th overall. None of them were picked as high as Juolevi did.

I think you would have to concede at least that juolevi is not in any way tracking like a defencemen picked #5 overall.

Your list of players range from being the 7th overall pick to the 37th overall pick and were selected from draft years as far back as 2000 and as recent as 2012. That's a pretty big pool of players to pick from and you found 7 players who couldn't crack the NHL by their d+3 but still went on to become top 3 dmen. Now how many defencemen were there during that timeframe who were selected between those specific draft ranges that couldn't' crack the NHl by their d+3 and went on to become busts?

I'm guessing that number is probably at least 10-20x more than the number that went on to become successful. In terms of the numbers and probabilities the vast majority of defencemen drafted that don't make the NHL full time by their d+3 go on to become busts.

Just taking a narrow minded look at the few anomalies doesn't paint the full picture, and the fact that a guy drafted 18 years ago developed slowly but eventually became a star so juolevi could be too is just wishful thinking.

 

[Bleach Clean]

No I dont see Juolevi as a disappointment because he is 19 and had a fine pro season in Finland was outstanding in the u20's and since the day he was drafted i saw a frame and skating that needed some power and explosiveness and that was gonna take some time. Nothing has changed for me because after his first camp he looked like he needed a couple yrs. I could care less if a guy has a Cody Hodgson or Michael Dal Colle junior career because as we all know translating at the next levels is what matters and he hasn't had a fair shake yet.

examples of top3 defenseman(selected as high picks) that took a bit longer to have an impact: Ryan Suter, Alex Pietrangelo, Matt Dumba, Ryan Ellis, Dan Hamhuis, Ryan McDonagh, Jonas Brodin, Brent Seabrook, Jake Gardiner, Mike Matheson, Nik Kronwall, Brady Skjei, Mike Green, Matt Niskanen, Roman Josi and as you can see many of these are top pair and also it's important to take note of players that may have been in the NHL but were sheltered and liabilities but their teams were fine with them developing in the NHL because the AHL wasn't an option.

As i have said many times i believe he has an ability to raise his game and i have sighted many examples of players that duplicated their junior productivity in the NHL. i feel he has this capability. If he does he will be in the same neighborhood of the current Tkachuk version.

"If he does" and "has the capability" does not denote probability. Likelihood. That's the difference? He can follow the path of an exception, to prove the rule. However, he doesn't cease to be an exception when doing so. That's what happens when we see his peers pass him by and him struggle to find a foot hold in the NHL.

Juolevi is a disappointment relative to the context of his selection. Top5 carries with it great expectations. That's just the way it is. His peers like Keller, Tkachuk and Sergachev have surpassed him. He's playing catch up. It's not about him needing more time. It's about his performance in the interim, while outside the NHL. Juolevi wouldn't be a hot button issue if he was tearing up the OHL and Liiga. Instead, he stagnated in the OHL and had a decent performance in Liiga. Nowhere near where you would consider him just as good as his peers, just in a different context. He's clearly regarded as the inferior prospect because of that lower league work.

So it's not just about him needing time. His play doesn't justify his pick position no matter where he's playing.

 

[Bleach Clean]

No I would call it absolute stupidity. Amazing that you would consider it just a reach.

The difference in our opinion is that you are completely ignoring context and the reasons behind the rankings. I have illustrated this to you so many times but you don't get it because you cling to your own "OMG AVERAGE RANKINGS!" For someone who has in the pass talk about process and argued that process is more important than the results, this seems completely contradictory.

How hard is it to understand that these "rankings" are just a list that a one player is often ranked above another based on the slimmest of margins or even a coin flip. Quick, I need to choose a number between 2 or 3. Which one? Take Craig Button's rankings. He was on 1040 saying that if you like Kotkaniemi at 3 take him. But his rankings would suggest that is a reach to you. Yet he's saying take him if you like him. You undoubtedly included McKenzie's rankings in your OMG AVERAGE RANKINGS but McKenzie said Juolevi is in the same class as Tkachuk. You undoubtedly included Hockey Prospects in your OMG AVERAGE RANKINGS but I bet you didn't buy it, otherwise you would read Mark Edwards saying that Edmonton has a choice between PLD, Tkachuk, and Juolevi.


Even chance as in 50/50 no. And I said this earlier. But at the end of the day it's about winning a Cup. I would have drafted Stamkos over Doughty every time. But in terms of their importance to winning a Cup, I can't help but give the edge to Doughty.

Do you understand what selection bias means? How is it selection bias when I gave to you the context behind their rankings. Don't be cheap. Buy the draft guides and read them.

I would definitely not trust Damien Cox. There's a school of thought that if you simply follow NHL Central Scouting rankings you would end up drafting better (for some teams anyways). But I think they're more of a guide than an actual authority. For example, Jake Virtanen was ranked ahead of Ritchie and Ehlers (whom they have 13th among NA skaters). I have experience with all of those draft guides/rankings and RLR that you have not included. Personally, I find Hockey Prospects tend to see things more similarly to the Canucks.

Regardless, pretty much all of them have "controversial rankings" that have problem to be disaster picks if you actually followed them. So to me, your reliance on "OMG AVERAGE RANKINGS" is complete stupidity to me.

Umm... selection bias? I clearly told you that Botchford reported hearing from NHL teams that the Canucks made a wise choice. The Canucks obviously had Juolevi ranked higher. This isn't "EVERYTHING we hear from NHL Scouts/GMs has... Tkachuk ahead" no?

This is really idiotic man. You're spinning things and spewing things out that are only in your mind. I don't know how many times I have to tell you to please read and not just spew things out that are in your mind. You think you are like the smartest guy here but you really are not. Your interpretation of what posters here write are often wrong and have proven to be wrong. But you think you have interpreted things right because you throw out a summary that isn't even close to what was written. Details matter. Not details that are in your head. I'm pretty much done with you at this point since you fail to read and just try to twist my words.

Just look at what you're doing here: On the one hand, Mark Edwards and McKenzie state Juolevi is in the same class as Tkachuk. That's your evidence. On the other hand, when I state that those very same sources ranked Tkachuk ahead, that's not evidence. Why, because the rankings don't have accompanying quotes? You're promoting their word and not their ranking. It's the same source. That's selection bias. You're accepting one context while rejecting the other. You don't accept all information. That's why your argument is fallacious.

That's 12 sources aside from Cox and Central Scouting... which you reject for whatever reason. Everyone agreed that Tkachuk was better. NO ONE ranked Juolevi ahead. Nobody. The average rankings normalize spikes in scouting opinion. That reduces the fluctuations to give a better read. That's why I use the average. Tkachuk finished 3 spots ahead there as well.

This is not spin. I'm using your warped logic against you. At every turn, I have provided sources to combat your sources. You've kind of cornered yourself here by denying one source to promote another. It's a lose/lose situation, so I understand your frustration.

In any event, two big admissions have occurred here. 1) You think Juolevi has a less than 50/50 chance to meet or exceed Tkachuk's current level of play and 2) You've admitted that it's not looking like a good pick right now. I'm glad that's not in doubt. It appears our disagreement lies in assessing public opinion pre-draft.

 

[VanJack]

My only hope is that if Juolevi clearly isn't ready at training camp, they send him out to Utica quickly and not have him hanging around for a full season like they did with both Virtanen and McCann. Hopefully the Canucks have more depth now and won't be tempted to do this.

 

[pgj98m3]

Hopefully the Canucks have more depth now

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHASHAHASHAHAHAHAHAHASHASHAHAHAHAHA.............GASP..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHASHAHA

You're killing me.....

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHASHAHASHAHAHAHAHAHASHASHAHAHAHAHA.............GASP..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHASHAHA

You're killing me.....

 

[Pavel96]

View attachment 126071

doubling down?

 

[ProstheticConscience]

doubling down?

He's getting all his licks in before he disappears from November to next April to come back and do it all over again...

 

[Peter10]

My only hope is that if Juolevi clearly isn't ready at training camp, they send him out to Utica quickly and not have him hanging around for a full season like they did with both Virtanen and McCann. Hopefully the Canucks have more depth now and won't be tempted to do this.

Canucks and depth dont belong in the same sentence unless a "no" is involved. A bunch of warm bodies does not qualify as depth.

 

[sting101]

Hmmmm Benning still talking like Juolevi is a big part of their core going forward.
I guess he hasn't read all the HF scouting reports yet.

 

[CanaFan]

Hmmmm Benning still talking like Juolevi is a big part of their core going forward.
I guess he hasn't read all the HF scouting reports yet.

Aww dang it. Wrap it up boys and girls, it’s not working. We all thought he’d read our posts and change his mind but looks like Benning is too smart for that.

 

[I in the Eye]

Hmmmm Benning still talking like Juolevi is a big part of their core going forward.
I guess he hasn't read all the HF scouting reports yet.

Pedigree.

 

[Krnuckfan]

Hmmmm Benning still talking like Juolevi is a big part of their core going forward.
I guess he hasn't read all the HF scouting reports yet.

Yeah benning's been spot on with his assessment of defencemen during the last 4 years.

 

[NucksRock]

Juolevi is way better than Tkachuk!

 

[CanaFan]

Juolevi is way better than Tkachuk!

Totally. Tkachuk isn’t even good enough for the NHL.

 

[ziploc]

Totally. Tkachuk isn’t even good enough for the NHL.

He's seriously overweight and in his forties. OJ is a way better prospect than Keith Tkachuk.