Prospect Info: Tom Willander: 11th Overall 2023 Draft (Rogle BK J20) - Part 02

[ManVanFan]

I’ve only watch this period this whole season lol.

He feels like a systems player so that typically doesn’t show well in a chaotic environment.

Lack of talent around him as well. Can't make others make the smart plays. Like why Hronek has played so well with Hughes vs the rest of Hughes pairs.

 

[Ernie]

i'm happy with trading away every single pick for the next 3 seasons if it improves our chances of winning in the playoffs for the next 3 seasons. do whatever you need to do to maximize the potential of our contending window.

I agree but don't think they should be targeting rentals, but players with term who will help the team beyond this year. The Lindholm trade didn't really deliver for the Canucks in terms of value.

 

[arttk]

I agree but don't think they should be targeting rentals, but players with term who will help the team beyond this year. The Lindholm trade didn't really deliver for the Canucks in terms of value.

well they wanted to keep Lindholm and Z, so it’s not like they spent assets thinking they will be rentals. I think whoever we acquire this TDL, they will try to keep them around, if the price is not stupid.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Last year the Canucks traded their 2024 first rounder; and a conditional fourth rounder; along with prospect d-men Brzustewicz and Jurmo as well as Kuzmenko for Lindholm. And Zadorov cost them a third and fifth rounder.

That's a total of four picks flushed away, actually five if you consider that Brzustewicz was their third rounder in 2023. All that for two guys who basically played in Vancouver for two months.

The question I have, is how many more deals like that can the Canucks afford to make? I get that they were loading up for a run.......but if it were to happen two years in a row, the cost is just too high imo.

You need to separate out those two trades.
A third and a fifth for Zadarov was very good value imo.
The Lindholm trade for me was a poor trade but I’d do a Zadarov type trade again as those picks are not much to give up.

 

[God]

I agree but don't think they should be targeting rentals, but players with term who will help the team beyond this year. The Lindholm trade didn't really deliver for the Canucks in terms of value.

Not really the thread for it, but Lindholm was one of our most effective players in the playoffs and we got rid of Kuzmenko's contract. Just because the team result wasn't there doesn't mean the trade wasn't a good one.

 

[strattonius]

You need to separate out those two trades.
A third and a fifth for Zadarov was very good value imo.
The Lindholm trade for me was a poor trade but I’d do a Zadarov type trade again as those picks are not much to give up.

Replace Lindholm with Debrusk that's basically where the money went and what we got out of the trade. Lindholm was excellent in the playoffs.

That was a good trade. We were contending and had a shot last year. Bummer it didn't work out.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Replace Lindholm with Debrusk that's basically where the money went and what we got out of the trade. Lindholm was excellent in the playoffs.

That was a good trade. We were contending and had a shot last year. Bummer it didn't work out.

We were a surprise team last year. Everyone expected us to be bottom 10 not top 10. But a team has to show at least 2 - 3 years of improvement before it should be trading away 1st round picks. Our prospect cupboard would like pretty good if we had never made that trade. Who knows what difference it made to our chances.

And we likely going to have to go through McDraisaitl for years.

 

[Agent007]

You need to separate out those two trades.
A third and a fifth for Zadarov was very good value imo.
The Lindholm trade for me was a poor trade but I’d do a Zadarov type trade again as those picks are not much to give up.

Just also wanted to add the 5th in the Zadarov trade they got from Chicago for beaulliver. So really it was a 3rd and Beaulliver for Zadarov.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Replace Lindholm with Debrusk that's basically where the money went and what we got out of the trade. Lindholm was excellent in the playoffs.

That was a good trade. We were contending and had a shot last year. Bummer it didn't work out.

Agreed. You just can’t plan for Demko being injured. Who knows what might have been with a healthy Demko. I think we probably beat the Oilers.

 

[VintageBure]

Can we try our best to keep this page about Willander’s development ?

 

[Ernie]

well they wanted to keep Lindholm and Z, so it’s not like they spent assets thinking they will be rentals. I think whoever we acquire this TDL, they will try to keep them around, if the price is not stupid.

I have no problem with the Zadorov trade, it worked out well. They didn't really try very hard to re-sign Lindholm, for good reasons. As we've seen again in Boston, he's a complementary player, not someone who moves the needle in a major way.

 

[arttk]

I have no problem with the Zadorov trade, it worked out well. They didn't really try very hard to re-sign Lindholm, for good reasons. As we've seen again in Boston, he's a complementary player, not someone who moves the needle in a major way.

Yeah, we shouldn’t keep players we trade at all cost just because we spent assets for them. Yeah it sucks that they didn’t stay but in return we did get cap space to make other moves. It’s more important I think to make sure the budget is not blown up just because of sunk cost.

 

[VanJack]

You can almost guarantee that last spring the Flames asked about Wilander in both the Zadorov and Lindholm deals......but clearly it was a 'non-starter' for the Canucks.

And I feel pretty certain that when trade speculation ramps up again at the TDL, teams will be enquiring about Wilander once again. And why wouldn't they? You can never acquire these kind of mobile, right shot d-men unless you're lucky enough to draft them.

He's a future fixture on the Canuck blueline, maybe even as early as this spring. And once he's in the lineup, you probably won't get him out of it for at least another decade.

 

[beachcomber]

He'll be a right side stud, top four guy for the next ten years. Zero chance he gets moved. Period. The Canuck's near future top three d presents a phenomenal base to work from.

 

[Grantham]

BU playing right now in the 3rd, BU up 5-2

Got sidetracked but now I will try to watch da thurd

Stats show he is +3 with 1 assist so far

 

[Grantham]

Unfortunately not much to report from watching the 3rd period. He is smooth and steady and just does his job. Could be like Adam Larsson maybe? That would be pretty great in my books. Larsson is more physical, but Tom is a better skater, but both seem super steady non flashy rocks on the back-end. Weird comparable maybe. Any thoughts as to stylistic comparisons?

 

[credulous]

Unfortunately not much to report from watching the 3rd period. He is smooth and steady and just does his job. Could be like Adam Larsson maybe? That would be pretty great in my books. Larsson is more physical, but Tom is a better skater, but both seem super steady non flashy rocks on the back-end. Weird comparable maybe. Any thoughts as to stylistic comparisons?

nick leddy imo. maybe not as much offensive upside

 

[BluesyShoes]

It strikes me that this edition of Boston University isn't as strong as the team a year ago. How long are they projected to last in the NCAA Frozen Four playoffs.......and if they bow out early, what's the earliest date Wilander could be signed and in a Canucks uniform in March?

Very likely, depending on if they send him to Abbotsford or not. I doubt he goes back to BU, Pondolfo's style of play is holding Willander back somewhat from becoming a better pro style player.

You would think that Pandolfo, of the 90's-early aughts Devils dynasty, would implement a sturdy system but it's just not the case. So many players are just sort of doing their own thing and there's no cohesion. Willander's partner, Boumedienne is actually one of the better systems-style players they have but he's a rookie and there are growing pains. All of this would be papered over were it not for the fact that they are a middling offensive team for all their talent and with all the free-wheeling. Part of that is Cole Hutson is not Lane Hutson and Cole Eiserman is not Macklin Celebrini.

Their loss last night can be pinned on their lack of structure. UMass Lowell just played more conservatively and pounced on the plentiful giveaways at the blue line and in the neutral zone.

Yeah you would think, I agree. This is exactly the case, more or less the same system as last year without the players to make it work. They did get exposed last year against the better teams; Pondolfo's system only really works when the offensive talent on the ice is lopsided in your favor.

It certainly generates chances, but it's a lot of trading chances. I'd argue by default BU gives up the better chances from a systems point of view, because usually they are somewhat compromised positionally. A simplified example is that they might generate a 3 on 2 for, but then they have a 3 on 2 coming back with a forward filling in on defense. Without Lane and Macklin this year, they lack the talent advantage to make up for that deficit.

 

[docbenton]

Unfortunately not much to report from watching the 3rd period. He is smooth and steady and just does his job. Could be like Adam Larsson maybe? That would be pretty great in my books. Larsson is more physical, but Tom is a better skater, but both seem super steady non flashy rocks on the back-end. Weird comparable maybe. Any thoughts as to stylistic comparisons?

Yeah my main critique of him is I'd like to see him be even more assertive and be more of a difference maker every shift. Too often he seems content to make the simple, easy play, even when it's not the best play. Wouldn't go as far as to say he takes shifts off, but he doesn't seem to have that mindset where he's going out and trying to take over the game every shift. He definitely has the tools to take charge more and there are flashes of it.

 

[credulous]

Yeah my main critique of him is I'd like to see him be even more assertive and be more of a difference maker every shift. Too often he seems content to make the simple, easy play, even when it's not the best play. Wouldn't go as far as to say he takes shifts off, but he doesn't seem to have that mindset where he's going out and trying to take over the game every shift. He definitely has the tools to take charge more and there are flashes of it.

he's a very consistent player and he'll probably make the nhl as a 4th/5th guy even if he doesn't improve much but unless he starts dominating in the ncaa i don't really see a very high ceiling for him. he's so easy to miss on the ice because he just doesn't really make stand out plays. whether he adds a physical element or improves his puck handling or starts assertive playmaking he needs to add something to his game

 

[Raistlin]

he's a very consistent player and he'll probably make the nhl as a 4th/5th guy even if he doesn't improve much but unless he starts dominating in the ncaa i don't really see a very high ceiling for him. he's so easy to miss on the ice because he just doesn't really make stand out plays. whether he adds a physical element or improves his puck handling or starts assertive playmaking he needs to add something to his game

With his skating, he can open up a lot of options. One of the reasons why a lot of us want him to stay in BU and be "the man" is for him to eat up ice time and expand his repertoire. its not a given that he will be stapled to QH and just cover for him. I am hoping to see more too.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Pearly clutching late 1sts during a contention window is what caused Gillis to fall short.

Gillis also had championship quality teams with depth in all positions - this team is not that.

 

[Wisp]

Gillis also had championship quality teams with depth in all positions - this team is not that.

This team will not have appreciatively better draft positioning than Gillis did from 2009 to 2012. A reminder the pick they flipped to the Flames was 28th over all - only Niklas Jensen was drafted higher (29th).

 

[Vector]

 

[ChilliBilly]

he's a very consistent player and he'll probably make the nhl as a 4th/5th guy even if he doesn't improve much but unless he starts dominating in the ncaa i don't really see a very high ceiling for him. he's so easy to miss on the ice because he just doesn't really make stand out plays. whether he adds a physical element or improves his puck handling or starts assertive playmaking he needs to add something to his game

bolded. He is exactly what we are looking for and perhaps more. If he doesn't add much offence, we may have another Tanev. thats a bad thing?