Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi

[Pavel96]

Yes. The thrust of Hindustan’s argument is totally ridiculous. The notion that we shouldn’t criticize prospects or point out that they are tracking poorly on a message board for discussing prospects is so absurdly stupid I’m left wondering why I am even engaging him on this topic.

Like, very few people are saying he is guaranteed to be a total bust, most are just saying he is tracking to be a bust given his draft position. I actually didn’t hate the original pick but have been quite critical of the pick given his poor development. At the same time i recognize that he could be some crazy outlier although the odds are not great that that will be the case.

I was more on top of the 'd1 performance doesn't matter' thought he was putting out there but appreciated his back and forth as we worked through that one. I think his notion was more, eh let's just ignore the obvious and use this rarely occurring example as to why everything is great. It's a positive outlook to have (that literally every best case scenario will work out from this exact point moving forward) but not the most logical with regards to analysis of an operation like this - if the highest level of success truly is the ultimate goal. Obviously past performance and analysis of this has to be taken into account and used to predict the most likely scenario that will occur.

But that notion that Olli is above reproach is laughable, and had been played out in this thread many times.

 

[Melvin]

Not sure why anyone is engaging, but it seems a lot are falling into the trap of repeating identical discussions from 3 years ago again.

it’s taking over the threads so I realize how people get caught up in it. It’s just frustrating.

Yeah.

It would be nice if, when these posters take long hiatuses, that they could at least return with some new arguments.

Defensemen take longer guyyyysssssss

 

[Horse McHindu]

But the vast majority are not disputing that Juolevi could take a big developmental leap, they just think it unlikely, which is a reasonable position. You can bring up outliers all you want but I think most people appreciate they do exist but don’t discuss this much because they are unlikely events. So there is a logic to them not being brought up each time Juolevi is criticized



You are just picking an arbitrary cut off though. Sure, it becomes increasingly less likely that player makes the NHL as they get older, but there still is a chance. And if you are going to be constantly pushing outliers as some sort of defense for Juolevi, why not do the same for the players I mentioned?

Fair enough on all your points.

I guess what pissed me off earlier in the thread, was when some guys were criticising Juolevi's current play (without having really observed him), while certain posters (i.e. @settinguptheplay ) that have actually been observing Juolevi closely, had commented on a lot of the positives that Juolevi has been doing (while also objectively giving criticism when warranted). Just made it blatantly obvious that a lot of the guys that are standing there throwing stones at Juolevi (based on his recent play), have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Siludin]

If Juolevi was picked later on you would all be stoked on his development. Time to start treating him like an Oliver Kylington type rather than a Drew Doughty type. He still projects well for a player his age. If Juolevi's name was Jett Woo you would be far more understanding of his injuries and far more patient with his development. A high draft position is not equivalent huge cap hit whereby keeping a player in the system is hurting your chances of success.

 

[Melvin]

If Juolevi was picked later on you would all be stoked on his development. Time to start treating him like an Oliver Kylington type rather than a Drew Doughty type. He still projects well for a player his age.

You mean like how everyone is stoked on Guillaume Brisebois?

If Juolevi were picked later his f***ing thread would be on the 88th page, like wherever Breezy's is.

 

[Melvin]

What I find amusing is that Ryan Miller* in the management thread yesterday was whinging about how we "can't let go of old mistakes," citing Eriksson and Juolevi as dead horses we are ostensibly beating.

But we wouldn't keep beating them if the CoB would just admit they were mistakes, and then we can all move on! But no, we have to play butactually and keep re-hashing the same tired arguments over and over again, which leads into the narrative that it's the Benning critics who can't let go of it.

Amusing. Hahahaha.

If Pastor or FAN or whomever you are arguing with would just say "You know what, drafting Juolevi was clearly a mistake. Should have taken Tkachuk. Oh well! Not a big deal! Pobody's nerfect!" Then this thread would sink to the bottom of the page and be gone forever.

 

[Siludin]

You mean like how everyone is stoked on Guillaume Brisebois?

If Juolevi were picked later his ****ing thread would be on the 88th page, like wherever Breezy's is.

I added to my post and also I am not sure your point exactly.

 

[Melvin]

I added to my post and also I am not sure your point exactly.

My point is that you are wrong. Nobody is "stoked" about players who have this trajectory until they at least make their NHL debut.

But also: Draft position is entirely relevant to trajectory. It is information that would be foolish to disregard.

 

[4Twenty]

If Juolevi was picked later on you would all be stoked on his development. Time to start treating him like an Oliver Kylington type rather than a Drew Doughty type. He still projects well for a player his age.

This is not true. He’d be an afterthought but nobody would be stoked. 24 points and minus 24 in 42 AHL games isn’t exactly stoking my excitement fire.

 

[alternate]

What I find amusing is that Ryan Miller* in the management thread yesterday was whinging about how we "can't let go of old mistakes," citing Eriksson and Juolevi as dead horses we are ostensibly beating.

But we wouldn't keep beating them if the CoB would just admit they were mistakes, and then we can all move on! But no, we have to play butactually and keep re-hashing the same tired arguments over and over again, which leads into the narrative that it's the Benning critics who can't let go of it.

Amusing. Hahahaha.

If Pastor or FAN or whomever you are arguing with would just say "You know what, drafting Juolevi was clearly a mistake. Should have taken Tkachuk. Oh well! Not a big deal! Pobody's nerfect!" Then this thread would sink to the bottom of the page and be gone forever.

I call bullshit.

 

[Siludin]

My point is that you are wrong. Nobody is "stoked" about players who have this trajectory until they at least make their NHL debut.

But also: Draft position is entirely relevant to trajectory. It is information that would be foolish to disregard.

I disagree. Plenty of players, especially defensemen, take a while to develop. It has been the folly of many past Vancouver regimes to have given up on prospects early. Based on your reply you would write off a 1st round pick if their D+1 is in the 2nd round pick territory, despite plenty of 2nd round picks making eventually making the NHL. Draft position projects into NHL games played because talented players are taken earlier, but that doesn't mean that players who aren't in the NHL in their D+3 or D+4 season do not make the NHL. Judge a played based on their age - they are more than a draft position.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Not sure why anyone would gripe at it being mentioned that Juolevi was on for the first 7 goals against. He’s a high extent player.
@THRILLHOIAF

that would be quite a feat in a 6-5 game.

he was actually on the icd for 8 goals. 5 against including the pp winner in ot and 3 for. officially he was -1.

obviously he had an interesting night.

 

[Siludin]

This is not true. He’d be an afterthought but nobody would be stoked. 24 points and minus 24 in 42 AHL games isn’t exactly stoking my excitement fire.

Maybe his +/- is ugly but his point production is very good for anyone his age. Check ppg for AHL U22 defensemen and Juolevi is in good company with the likes of Cholowski, Hague, Clague, Fleury, Foote etc. All solid prospects who were taken a little later than Juolevi and prospects who I am sure Canucks fans would be happy to have in their system. Take injuries into account and expectations are buoyed substantially.

 

[4Twenty]

that would be quite a feat in a 6-5 game.

he was actually on the icd for 8 goals. 5 against including the pp winner in ot and 3 for. officially he was -1.

obviously he had an interesting night.

Meant 7 goals in the game obviously.

 

[4Twenty]

Maybe his +/- is ugly but his point production is very good for anyone his age. Check ppg for U22 defensemen and Juolevi is in good company with the likes of Cholowski, Hague, Clague, Fleury, Foote etc. All solid prospects who were taken a little later than Juolevi and prospects who I am sure Canucks fans would be happy to have in their system.

Sure people would be stoked if they disregarded his defensive play.

 

[VancouverJagger]

Ehhhhhhhr mahhhhhhh GAWWWD..........It's a real test of mental fortitude to venture into this thread looking for legitimate updates regarding Juolevi. Not that I'm not thrilled sorting thru posts #1,903,302 - 1.903,403 of bickering regarding the wisdom of his draft position but it would be nice to just hear updates as to his actual progress.

I look forward to hearing how his development is coming along in Utica and this is the primary place that I come to get such updates. It would be soooo massive for our team if he could develop into anything close to resembling a top 4 guy. I've always thought he had the skill - it was his compete level (or lack thereof) that was the concern. It's been telling for me at least that this prospect has always seemed to raise his game when the stakes are higher (leading me to believe that he does have another gear to access if/when needed).

Recent reports (conflicting as some of the opinions on here may be) are somewhat encouraging. Seems to be that he's getting his bearings again after his latest injury - if (and that's a big if considering his history) he can stay healthy for the rest of the season there's probably a decent chance that he makes his Canucks debut at some point this season. Which for the fans is something to look forward to.......regardless of whether or not he was the right pick or not.

 

[Siludin]

Sure people would be stoked if they disregarded his defensive play.

That's the teachable and systems-dependant. Juolevi's defensive play was strong until the AHL and every younger Canucks prospect has had some growing pains with the current coaching staff there. Give him a full season

 

[4Twenty]

As far as I can tell, this is exactly what they are saying -- that it was a reach, and that one reach among many fairly good picks a) is not necessary a big deal even if it was a mistake and b) may have unpredictable ripple effects that could actually benefit the team. You've actually expressed the same general opinion elsewhere -- that the influence of a GM can be largely absorbed by the influence of chance and the draft. In this specific instance you essentially agree with PoM and FAN. Their general defence of Benning is misinformed and nonsensical, as much as the prevailing tendency by more intelligent and informed posters to attack anything he does on any possible pretext is in bad faith.

Interesting interpretation. I don’t read it the same.

I also don’t think these, to use your phrasing, misinformed nonsensical opinions are even close to the critiques. That you feel the need to paint them with the same brush yet only feel like constantly attacking the posts of those who critique seems a bit ridiculous.

I think you’re whole post here is bad faith. Calling out intelligent informed opinions while supporting the side you deem nonsensical and misinformed seems goofy.

 

[krutovsdonut]

This is not true. He’d be an afterthought but nobody would be stoked. 24 points and minus 24 in 42 AHL games isn’t exactly stoking my excitement fire.

well the fact he's still over .5 ppg after half a season total games is encouraging that he can produce and it is not a statistical fluke. the fact every one of those games was in injury rehab mode from two different surgeries and a mystery groin injury is also encouraging that he can do better when fully rehabbed.

a brutal plus minus for a dman putting up those numbers that early in the ahl is not a huge concern yet, especially where the injuries cause mobility issues you expect or hope to subside.

overall he's progressing really well as a prospect this early in an ahl career. he's obviously nowhere near where a 5oa should be but he's not quite out of runway yet.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Interesting interpretation. I don’t read it the same.

I also don’t think these, to use your phrasing, misinformed nonsensical opinions are even close to the critiques. That you feel the need to paint them with the same brush yet only feel like constantly attacking the posts of those who critique seems a bit ridiculous.

I think you’re whole post here is bad faith. Calling out intelligent informed opinions while supporting the side you deem nonsensical and misinformed seems goofy.

If you think I'm supporting any side, you don't understand what I'm talking about or don't want to. One side is ignorant. One side is lying and pushing incomplete, false arguments through brute force and numbers when sensible but less psychologically satisfying arguments could be made for the same points. If you don't understand why anyone would find the latter more repugnant, more deserving of scrutiny, and more interesting to unpack, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Melvin]

I disagree. Plenty of players, especially defensemen, take a while to develop. It has been the folly of many past Vancouver regimes to have given up on prospects early. Based on your reply you would write off a 1st round pick if their D+1 is in the 2nd round pick territory, despite plenty of 2nd round picks making eventually making the NHL. Draft position projects into NHL games played because talented players are taken earlier, but that doesn't mean that players who aren't in the NHL in their D+3 or D+4 season do not make the NHL. Judge a played based on their age - they are more than a draft position.

Here we go again.

Twenty-five defenders have played in the NHL since Olli was selected, and most players who make it, even defenders, make it within their first 2-or-3 years. YES THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS. This is literally what the last 5 pages have been about, which I guess you skipped over. Obviously people are going to be concerned if he's 95% likely to bust even while still understanding that he could make it.

More importantly, though, it has absolutely not been the "folly" of many past regimes to give up on prospects early. If anything, the mistake of previous regimes has been to cling to their prospects until they have no value: Jensen, Schroeder, Shinkaruk, etc.

Seriously, why do people believe this? Because Cam Neely? There are basically ZERO examples since then of the Canucks giving up on a prospect who was tracking poorly and having them blow up in their face. We gave up on Alek Stojanov, trading him for Naslund. That worked out fine. Grabner and Hodgson were both players who were in the NHL and traded in high-value deals, not "given up on."

I wouldn't necessarily "write off a 1st round pick in their D+1" but let's play a game. Suppose I did. Look through every single first round pick the Canucks have made and let's say that I trade away every single one who was not tracking well in their D+1. What does that look like? Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat are all kept. Juolevi and Virtanen traded. Jensen, Schroeder and Gaunce are traded. Hodgson is kept. White is traded. Grabner kept. Bourdon and Schneider kept. Do I need to keep going? This is me taking the insane position you ascribed to me, trading away 1st rounders after their D+1, and I'm wondering when it will be folly? Eventually, I will trade somoene I shouldn't, but overwhelmingly I am going to come out ahead in the long run if I can trade all those eventual busts for new picks while they still have dat new prospect shine. I talk about this all the time but look at NYI selling off Griffin Reinhart and getting the Barzal pick. Brilliant. Or even Calgary harvesting the Andersson pick from us by "giving up" on Sven Baertschi.

The idea that teams/fans "give up too easily" is actually the exact opposite of the truth and is due to fear-mongering because everyone is terrified if doing the next Cam Neely trade. Which, by the way, isn't even a good example of this because he was playing in the NHL at the time just not getting offensive minutes.

Fans should give up much faster and a smart team would be burning through their prospects every year. The fear of looking embarassed when that 1% of the time the player does develop late and getting tons of flak for it is just too scary for teams to consider it. In the corporate world, it is still better to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.

Looks like I'd keep Nathan Smith though. Damn it.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Sure people would be stoked if they disregarded his defensive play.

Yeah the reports on his defensive play are concerning.
But then I have also heard that he's killing penalties and doing a good job at it generally. Obviously the coach likes him on the PK.
It's really hard to get a good read on him with the constant flow of injuries, although the last few game reports all seem to say that his defensive play has improved somewhat.
Obviously not what you want to see from a top pick but at this point it is whether he will become a serviceable NHL player. This year should answer that question.

 

[krutovsdonut]

That's the teachable and systems-dependant. Juolevi's defensive play was strong until the AHL and every younger Canucks prospect has had some growing pains with the current coaching staff there. Give him a full season

they are playing our system which depends on defensive mobility to work. if he does not have the ability to pivot or skate out of trouble to gain time and space to make a play he is going to struggle, because there is not a lot of down low support.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Yeah the reports on his defensive play are concerning.
But then I have also heard that he's killing penalties and doing a good job at it generally. Obviously the coach likes him on the PK.
It's really hard to get a good read on him with the constant flow of injuries, although the last few game reports all seem to say that his defensive play has improved somewhat.
Obviously not what you want to see from a top pick but at this point it is whether he will become a serviceable NHL player. This year should answer that question.

being good on the pk means he may well be serviceable right now on a team with a more structured defensive system.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Yeah I can’t say I agree with you as per usual.

did you edit his post or did he?