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

[sensodyne17]

Does anyone think this also looks bad on Willander and his camp?

The Canucks have not had problems signing college draft picks in years, but suddenly Willander's a problem?

The Canucks drafted Willander much higher than most boards/mocks and fully supported his unorthodox route to play in college instead of Sweden.

If Willander is truly willing to forgo turning pro (despite publicly stating that turning pro is his best development path) over some bonus structure that he likely won't reach... what does that say about him and his camp?

Bro could have been playing in the AHL playoffs and getting more games in his resume but choosing to hold out over bonuses he probably won't hit?

I don't agree with the people that just want to give him whatever he wants to get it done. These type of contracts have structure and guidelines. Team needs to hold firm when it comes to negotiating... how do you think we got Pius Suter at a discount? Lankinen at a discount? Sherwood at a discount? No one person should be holding the team hostage and this management team has clearly held the line, whether with the franchise player (EP) down a prospect (Willander).

I like Willander but if he's a problem signing the ELC then what do you think the headache level is going to be when he signs his first, second and third contract?

Willander's value as a top RD prospect is going to be huge. He could definitely land a young top six forward without hurting this team in the immediate future. Trading him is not the worst move here.

 

[Jerry the great]

Does anyone think this also looks bad on Willander and his camp?

The Canucks have not had problems signing college draft picks in years, but suddenly Willander's a problem?

The Canucks drafted Willander much higher than most boards/mocks and fully supported his unorthodox route to play in college instead of Sweden.

If Willander is truly willing to forgo turning pro (despite publicly stating that turning pro is his best development path) over some bonus structure that he likely won't reach... what does that say about him and his camp?

Bro could have been playing in the AHL playoffs and getting more games in his resume but choosing to hold out over bonuses he probably won't hit?

I don't agree with the people that just want to give him whatever he wants to get it done. These type of contracts have structure and guidelines. Team needs to hold firm when it comes to negotiating... how do you think we got Pius Suter at a discount? Lankinen at a discount? Sherwood at a discount? No one person should be holding the team hostage and this management team has clearly held the line, whether with the franchise player (EP) down a prospect (Willander).

I like Willander but if he's a problem signing the ELC then what do you think the headache level is going to be when he signs his first, second and third contract?

Willander's value as a top RD prospect is going to be huge. He could definitely land a young top six forward without hurting this team in the immediate future. Trading him is not the worst move here.

Without knowing what the Canucks offer is, it's hard to get too agitated...as long as he comes to dev camp.

If the Canucks offered him bonuses between what Benson got, and Dvorsky got and his camp countered that with "we want max schedule As"....it's not a great look IMO and giving it sets a precedent that they obviously don't want to set. They're hardly unique with this stance; teams sometimes go off board if they have to because you're trying to coax someone out of Russia or you have a college player that just finished his third season in the NCAA and you don't want to risk him returning for a 4th. We just saw that with Snuggerud, Rinzel* and Greene, who were 2022 draftee's that got way more in Schedule As than players taken around them in the draft

*Rinzel only has 2 years of NCAA under his belt which explains why his bonuses are a little lighter than Greene's despite being an earlier pick in the draft.

 

[mouser]

Thank you. Just to clarify that my understanding was the same as yours: if a non-LTIR club has zero available regular cap space, they could nonetheless send down an ELC player making $900,000 in base salary + signing bonuses, and recall a player with the same salary and signing bonuses but higher performance bonuses except in the highly unlikely event that doing so would push them over the 7.5% performance bonus cushion. Is that a fair summation? (This is the point of contention; the Canucks Army article linked in a different post claims otherwise.)

If I’m understanding the details in your post correctly, then Yes.

When a team is operating under the Salary Cap Ceiling they can recall players with Performance Bonuses subject to the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion. When a team is operating in LTIR they can’t use the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion and need the necessary cap relief available in their LTIR pools to recall a player with Performance Bonuses.

I haven’t read the Canucks Army article. LTIR is complicated—not uncommon for a media article to discuss a specific LTIR scenario correctly. but readers might erroneously misinterpret details in the article as applying to other possible LTIR scenarios not covered by the article.

 

[me2]

Without knowing what the Canucks offer is, it's hard to get too agitated...as long as he comes to dev camp.

If the Canucks offered him bonuses between what Benson got, and Dvorsky got and his camp countered that with "we want max schedule As"....it's not a great look IMO and giving it sets a precedent that they obviously don't want to set. They're hardly unique with this stance; teams sometimes go off board if they have to because you're trying to coax someone out of Russia or you have a college player that just finished his third season in the NCAA and you don't want to risk him returning for a 4th. We just saw that with Snuggerud, Rinzel* and Greene, who were 2022 draftee's that got way more in Schedule As than players taken around them in the draft

View attachment 1026684

View attachment 1026687

*Rinzel only has 2 years of NCAA under his belt which explains why his bonuses are a little lighter than Greene's despite being an earlier pick in the draft.

Static draft position isn't always a perfect market for bonuses. For example, Benson has 2 years of nhl play that he got paid to date. Dvorak has a year of pro in the ahl with a dash of nhl. Any bonuses left on table have been made up for with salary and faster access to non-elc money. Also draft positing is just a guide, how a player plays after will affect their value. Has Willander played well enough in those two years to earn extra bonuses? Maybe not. We will see if he plays for Sweden.

 

[Blue and Green]

If I’m understanding the details in your post correctly, then Yes.

When a team is operating under the Salary Cap Ceiling they can recall players with Performance Bonuses subject to the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion. When a team is operating in LTIR they can’t use the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion and need the necessary cap relief available in their LTIR pools to recall a player with Performance Bonuses.

I haven’t read the Canucks Army article. LTIR is complicated—not uncommon for a media article to discuss a specific LTIR scenario correctly. but readers might erroneously misinterpret details in the article as applying to other possible LTIR scenarios not covered by the article.

Thanks again. In this case, I think that the two articles in question are erroneous and misled a few people here, rather than being misinterpreted by any of us.

If you have time/interest, these are the articles:

Why haven’t the Canucks signed Tom Willander yet? (You can scroll past the opening sections; the points of contention start at the heading "Performance Bonuses and the Salary Cap")

Why Jonathan Lekkerimäki’s performance bonuses could put the Canucks in a tough spot

Look, Jonathan Lekkerimäki was going to have a difficult time cracking...

canucksarmy.com

 

[F A N]

- Whether a player with Performance Bonuses was on the opening day roster may not be directly relevant. What matters is if a player with Performance Bonuses was on the roster when LTIR is first invoked—whether that was done on opening day or later in the season.

Hi mouser. Thanks for chiming in. In a non-LTIR scenario, we're also trying to figure out whether there is a difference if a player with Performance Bonuses was on the opening day roster vs not when it comes to a team recalling a player from the minors. That was the subject of the Canucks Army article and also the All About Jersey article as it relates to Nemec.

In the context of a scenario where the team wants to be just under the cap to accumulate cap space throughout the year:

The articles seem to suggest that if a player with Performance Bonuses was on the opening day roster then the bonuses goes into the "performance bonus relief pool" and the 7.5% rule applies. In this scenario, if you send down the player and later recalls such a player you don't need to account for the Performance Bonuses.

However, if a player with Performance Bonuses was NOT on the opening day roster, then you need to have the available cap space to accommodate a player's potential Performance Bonuses in order to recall such a player in a non-LTIR situation.

 

[Jerry the great]

Static draft position isn't always a perfect market for bonuses. For example, Benson has 2 years of nhl play that he got paid to date. Dvorak has a year of pro in the ahl with a dash of nhl. Any bonuses left on table have been made up for with salary and faster access to non-elc money. Also draft positing is just a guide, how a player plays after will affect their value. Has Willander played well enough in those two years to earn extra bonuses? Maybe not. We will see if he plays for Sweden.

There are usually a handful of players taken in the first round of the draft whose AAVs don't slot perfectly between (or are equal to) the players drafted immediately before or after them, but overall, there is a well established pecking order. almost always, the non conformists are Russian players (drafted out of Russia), or NCAA guys. Leverage matters. Of course draft positioning is just a guide as is urgency. If the Canucks were playoff bound Willander probably burns a year and goes along for the just as Snuggerud and Buium are doing now. He'd have received his signing bonus and a prorated salary for what remained of the season. maybe even more As than they would typically offer an 11th OA pick.

As for post draft development impact and the role it plays...it of course matters, but probably not as much as you'd think (depending how much leverage a player has). Lane Hutson did not receive anywhere close to maximum bonuses when he left school after year 2 despite blowing the doors off during his time at BU. Alex Nikishin (3rd round pick in 2000) is able to earn $3MM in bonuses next year...so max As and a whole slug of Bs. Again....Leverage matters,

 

[mouser]

Thanks again. In this case, I think that the two articles in question are erroneous and misled a few people here, rather than being misinterpreted by any of us.

If you have time/interest, these are the articles:

Why haven’t the Canucks signed Tom Willander yet? (You can scroll past the opening sections; the points of contention start at the heading "Performance Bonuses and the Salary Cap")

Why Jonathan Lekkerimäki’s performance bonuses could put the Canucks in a tough spot

Look, Jonathan Lekkerimäki was going to have a difficult time cracking...

canucksarmy.com

Hi mouser. Thanks for chiming in. In a non-LTIR scenario, we're also trying to figure out whether there is a difference if a player with Performance Bonuses was on the opening day roster vs not when it comes to a team recalling a player from the minors. That was the subject of the Canucks Army article and also the All About Jersey article as it relates to Nemec.

In the context of a scenario where the team wants to be just under the cap to accumulate cap space throughout the year:

The articles seem to suggest that if a player with Performance Bonuses was on the opening day roster then the bonuses goes into the "performance bonus relief pool" and the 7.5% rule applies. In this scenario, if you send down the player and later recalls such a player you don't need to account for the Performance Bonuses.

However, if a player with Performance Bonuses was NOT on the opening day roster, then you need to have the available cap space to accommodate a player's potential Performance Bonuses in order to recall such a player in a non-LTIR situation.

Read the article, I do see errors by the author in understanding or poorly explaining how the rules work. The author is either:

A) Misunderstanding how the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion works. There is no opening day requirement for players to be included in the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion. If a team is operating under the cap ceiling any recall of players with Performance Bonuses will by first applied to the 7.5% Cushion, or

B) Erroneously thinking the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion and the “LTIR performance bonus pool” are the same thing, or

C) If the author does understand the difference between the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion and the “LTIR performance bonus pool” then there are sections of the article where the author doesn’t clearly communicate which of those two performance bonus restrictions in (B) apply to that section of the article.

 

[Blue and Green]

Read the article, I do see errors by the author in understanding or poorly explaining how the rules work. The author is either:

A) Misunderstanding how the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion works. There is no opening day requirement for players to be included in the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion. If a team is operating under the cap ceiling any recall of players with Performance Bonuses will by first applied to the 7.5% Cushion, or

B) Erroneously thinking the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion and the “LTIR performance bonus pool” are the same thing, or

C) If the author does understand the difference between the 7.5% Performance Bonus Cushion and the “LTIR performance bonus pool” then there are sections of the article where the author doesn’t clearly communicate which of those two performance bonus restrictions in (B) apply to that section of the article.

Totally agree. I appreciate your time and effort to read through those articles and our posts on this forum and provide this feedback.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Mgmt has f***ed this up royally

 

[Oliewud]

Does anyone think this also looks bad on Willander and his camp?

The Canucks have not had problems signing college draft picks in years, but suddenly Willander's a problem?

The Canucks drafted Willander much higher than most boards/mocks and fully supported his unorthodox route to play in college instead of Sweden.

If Willander is truly willing to forgo turning pro (despite publicly stating that turning pro is his best development path) over some bonus structure that he likely won't reach... what does that say about him and his camp?

Bro could have been playing in the AHL playoffs and getting more games in his resume but choosing to hold out over bonuses he probably won't hit?

I don't agree with the people that just want to give him whatever he wants to get it done. These type of contracts have structure and guidelines. Team needs to hold firm when it comes to negotiating... how do you think we got Pius Suter at a discount? Lankinen at a discount? Sherwood at a discount? No one person should be holding the team hostage and this management team has clearly held the line, whether with the franchise player (EP) down a prospect (Willander).

I like Willander but if he's a problem signing the ELC then what do you think the headache level is going to be when he signs his first, second and third contract?

Willander's value as a top RD prospect is going to be huge. He could definitely land a young top six forward without hurting this team in the immediate future. Trading him is not the worst move here.

the canucks have no leverage. we are a dog shit organization that needs to take what it gets.

 

[Jerry the great]

the canucks have no leverage. we are a dog shit organization that needs to take what it gets.

the Canucks leverage is the same as any teams leverage, if Willander doesn't turn pro with the Canucks, he has to wait two more years before they lose his rights. it would be totally reetarded to defer your nhl career by two years over a couple hundred thousand in POTENTIAL earnings. .

 

[Oliewud]

the Canucks leverage is the same as any teams leverage, if Willander doesn't turn pro with the Canucks, he has to wait two more years before they lose his rights. it would be totally reetarded to defer your nhl career by two years over a couple hundred thousand in POTENTIAL earnings. .

the end goal is to make your team better than other teams

we are very far from that goal and im not sure how f***ing around with bonuses helps us accomplish that but okay keep drinkin the kool aid of an 80 year old senile dinosaur and a rookie swedish GM

 

[HairyKneel]

Christ there is an insecure, immature, whiny chunk of this fanbase. Caliing the team a shits smear, a joke, a dogshit organization. Maybe take a bit of a break if it enrages you so much.

 

[Oliewud]

Christ there is an insecure, immature, whiny chunk of this fanbase. Caliing the team a shits smear, a joke, a dogshit organization. Maybe take a bit of a break if it enrages you so much.

how about not being so sensitive? We're literally run by a slum landord that hired a convicted felon for a coach.

The fact that there's still people out here willing to defend these clowns is INSANE. you guys have no real world experience, just emotional attachment to players with no actual desire to build a respectable franchise.

Ridiculous.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

how about not being so sensitive? We're literally run by a slum landord that hired a convicted felon for a coach.

The fact that there's still people out here willing to defend these clowns is INSANE. you guys have no real world experience, just emotional attachment to players with no actual desire to build a respectable franchise.

Ridiculous.

Hold on a second.

The faction of people on here who seem to seek out information that they can then catastrophize after reading in a negative way, often based upon a ton of conjecture, are calling those of us who find their schtick exhausting 'sensitive'? Fascinating.

Also we're the ones with no real world experience. Those of us who can manage our emotions and consider multiple variables instead of hyper fixating on, oh say the media sensationalizing a slightly difficult negotiation with a college player 5 MONTHS before the season starts.

Yes, how dare we consider the possibility that things might work out.

 

[Canucker]

how about not being so sensitive? We're literally run by a slum landord that hired a convicted felon for a coach.

The fact that there's still people out here willing to defend these clowns is INSANE. you guys have no real world experience, just emotional attachment to players with no actual desire to build a respectable franchise.

Ridiculous.

Sounds like you're following a team you don't like, maybe find a team you like better?

 

[Vector]

Kind of related to Willander so I figured I'd post it here.

 

[credulous]

howard isn't really giving much up by going back to school. he has to sign a 3 year elc if he signs this summer but he can sign a 2 year elc if he signs next year

 

[Nick Lang]

Hold on a second.

The faction of people on here who seem to seek out information that they can then catastrophize after reading in a negative way, often based upon a ton of conjecture, are calling those of us who find their schtick exhausting 'sensitive'? Fascinating.

Also we're the ones with no real world experience. Those of us who can manage our emotions and consider multiple variables instead of hyper fixating on, oh say the media sensationalizing a slightly difficult negotiation with a college player 5 MONTHS before the season starts.

Yes, how dare we consider the possibility that things might work out.

Holy the irony and complete misunderstanding is off the charts. People like this are the exact definition of overly sensitive and reactionary. I notice that poster only shows up once in a blue moon to level criticisms that become popular in the media. Yawwwn.

I also love the holier than thou attitude from some people. Like they have anything relevant to say about how rich people make money, or the coach gambled, which is now totally legal. Like they are perfect people above reproach. Get off the pedestal.

 

[Attack Vector]

Looks like the good college prospects are starting to discover they can control their own destiny if they wait out 4 years.

 

[Jerry the great]

howard isn't really giving much up by going back to school. he has to sign a 3 year elc if he signs this summer but he can sign a 2 year elc if he signs next year

who's his agent?

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Both Howard and Willander have leverage on signing because neither has an absolute clear path to a Top 6 or Top 4 role at the NHL level immediately.

So unless they get all their bonus clauses AND effectively get guaranteed a spot, they know that by going back another year (or even threatening it) has almost no downside.

The risk is an injury but that's always a potential risk.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Looks like the good college prospects are starting to discover they can control their own destiny if they wait out 4 years.

Justin Schultz, Jimmy Vesey, Will Butcher, Matt Benning, Alex Kerfoot, Cal Peterson

I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Both Howard and Willander have leverage on signing because neither has an absolute clear path to a Top 6 or Top 4 role at the NHL level immediately.

So unless they get all their bonus clauses AND effectively get guaranteed a spot, they know that by going back another year (or even threatening it) has almost no downside.

The risk is an injury but that's always a potential risk.

It's risky because you also delay your development 4 more years at which it becomes much harder to correct your deficiencies in your mid 20's. Justin Schultz still earned a bit of coin and salvaged his career in Pittsburgh but holding out to go to Edmonton was such an unnecessary and stupid risk.

 

[Nuckles]