The Athletic Hockey Show - Best and worst case NHL Draft prospect scenarios

Episode Date: May 8, 2026

We’re a couple of days removed from the NHL Draft Lottery, with the Toronto Maple Leafs jumping up to grab the No. 1 pick, and today the guys discuss why the Leafs should and should not take Gavin McKenna first overall. Before that, the crew breaks down Scott’s latest full first round mock draft. Plus, the optimistic and pessimistic cases for top players in this summer’s draft to close things out.Hosts: Max Bultman, Corey Pronman, and Scott WheelerWith: FloHockey’s Chris PetersExecutive Producer: Chris FlanneryProducer: Chris FlanneryWatch full episodes on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowJoin our Discord Server: https://discord.gg/VTm9VjkFSubscribe to The Athletic: https://theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Hey, everybody, Max Boltman here alongside the athletic Scott Wheeler and Corey Prondman and Flohawkies, Chris Peters, for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. We've had a couple days now, guys, to digest the draft lottery. I thought the reactions that you guys had on Tuesday night, I think, are still going to be the big topics at the very top of the draft. But we're going to come back to those after a little bit of time to think on it. We're going to talk about kind of the best and worst case scenario.

for the top group of 10 to 12 prospects there. Corey had a great article on that this week on The Athletic. But I actually want to start, Scott, with your mock draft that just came out today. It's a fresh mock draft. You saw our staff mock before you were, I mean, before this one came out, obviously. But I wonder what the hardest spots you found yourself at in this draft were. It does feel like there's a cluster of names that, you know, go through right about 10 to 12 that are the group. I wonder, was there difficulties in there?

Did it start after there? Like what were the hardest spots of putting this together? I think there were sort of two ranges, if you will, that, that's where things got a little trickier. The first was starting at five for me. I think those first four names on my list are going to be the first four names picked. I think there's a chance that Chase Reed isn't the first D taken and that you see a Carson Carl's sort of go in that range potentially. But when I started texting around with people immediately after the lottery, it felt to me like

Gavin McKenna, Evar Stenberg, Caleb Malholtra, and Chase Reed were kind of the top four guys, and that things started to get more dynamic, more interesting at number five with the Rangers. I had the Rangers taking Keaton Verhoff, but they're a tricky one. They need just about everything, so there isn't a clear angle there. And when I started texting around with people about some of those names, whether it's people around the kids or sort of scouts with other teams and that kind of thing, as I, as I, as I, I began to finalize how my sort of mock was going to take shape. They were, they felt to not just to me, but to other people like the start of where it

gets interesting. And then it's always tricky later. Like the, the, the 20s and 30s, there are a couple of big D-Man that I know are going to go in that range. The centers are going to go higher like the commands and the, those sort of pieces in the second half of the first round are going to go earlier than people maybe expect. and then you're going to see some of those smaller wingers. Like you guys probably noticed there was no Mathis Preston,

neither of the Ruck twins were in my first round. I had guys like Ignatavisius and others that people were telling me, like these are the names that are going to go in the first round. And inevitably, there's going to be more D in the first round than people expect to. And I didn't have guys like Jacob Vanichek, who I think has a very real chance to sneak into the first round as well. So sort of finding out who the names were that teams felt were going to go late in the first round was a tricky part of it

because there is some sort of divergence from my list there. And then at the top, it really felt like the Rangers at 5 is where things get interesting. And with the way that Daxon Rudolph is playing, he was another player that I dug in on a lot because it is feeling to me

like Daxon is very much in that group with Smiths, with Carols, with Verhoff in terms of those D around that 5 to 7, 8 range. I know when we did the staff, mock. I was assigned to pick for Florida. And Smith was the guy who you have going to Florida. He was the guy that I was hoping would make it to my pick because I think he's a great fit there. But I'm surprised that for a player

who played at the Olympics, who we're going to see it again at the World Championships, who's had a lot of success versus men, I know it's a heavy D class and everyone's kind of got their flavor, but that was a name I was surprised to see hang around that long. Yeah, I wonder a little bit about a bump at the end of the year. Like, Daxon has definitely had a bump from the way that he has played with Prince Albert. I wonder. the same thing with Alberts. Like, is he going to get that sort of Moritz-Sider bump? Moritz-Sider kind of went from a top-10, top-15 guy that everybody really liked,

and he was great in the DEL playoffs, and it's a similar line to draw between the DEL playoffs, although I don't think Smiths was as impressive as Sider was in his DEL playoffs that year. But that bump could matter. Like, if he plays well at men's worlds and him and Rudolph are kind of the hot names, especially now that Mal Hulter, now everybody's high on Mal Hulcher, but Malholtra playing into the Mem Cup, I think, would have even strengthened his case. We're going to see, I think, a little bit of a bump for Rudolph and for Smits if they play well late in the season here,

just because they're the last guys that everybody's going to have eyes on. The conversations I've had with teams about Smiths is very similar to the conversation. I've had teams about Keaton Verhoff. And, you know, everyone who likes the size, everyone who likes the skating, the projection there with, you know, the tools. I think with both them, the question comes down to how smart they are and how much off. you think they're actually going to have the NHL or the NHL power play guys, which you could argue is very similar to the Sider debates about six years ago. And I think if you come down where you think like the offense is just average,

they think they're more like five to ten, six to ten. But there are people who think Smiths and Verhoff do have offense, who will be second power play, fringe first power play, if you've got to put them in a pinch. And those people have them like two or three on their list. I think there's a few different cases in this. draft, and really every draft where you get players who have kind of a couple similar traits. And I look at Carl's and Smiths as kind of having just excellent athletes on the left side.

Carl's skating, I think, is really, really good. And Smith's is good. I don't know if it's quite Carl's level. But those two, I think, could be one that if one of them goes four or five, then the other could, you know, they could kind of trade places at any point here. That's fair. I think there's a scenario where Carl's goes like two, three, four, too. Like I think he's he's in that mix.

I know he's in that mix for some people. Who's your comp for him? Because as I've watched him, I was thinking like a lot of the guys I feel like I want to compare him to, like a Sanderson or even, you know, a hayskin in on the high end. I think still have more natural offense than I've seen from him. The one I've heard that I liked as McDonough. And he's a better skater than McDonough, right? Maybe I'm thinking of old McDonald too much.

Yeah. Now, McDonough skating was pretty prolific when he was a teenager. Yeah. Okay. So that's a good one then, and he certainly can play in those tough minute situations, and that's going to be an appealing player for teams very high in this draft. Were there any other spots of this mock, Corey or Chris, as you saw Scott's mock this morning, where they really stood out to either as a, yeah, that makes a lot of sense, or that's an interesting name there?

I feel like Gustavson has some helium behind him. I think Scott has him going around 15. It wouldn't surprise me if he gets up close to 10 once we get through the combine process and stuff like that. I just feel like a 6-4D who I know Gollier won best defensemen at the U18s, but I feel like Gassafsyn was probably better there. Like, I feel like there's going to be a lot of talk for him in these next few weeks. Yeah. So the one that I've noticed just more in terms of audience involvement, if you will, is the pushing back of Stenberg slipping to four, which I don't think is out of the. question. And that's where I mocked him as well, Scott, um, on my early one. And that to me,

like the question is it's not really about, you know, the everybody agrees. I think that the player is pretty exceptional and that there's a lot of great things. And the question is, is, is he going to be a top two pick? Um, you know, everybody, at least the public consensus seems to be that at least my mentions are to be believed, um, which is never a good metric. for this kind of thing, but it helps tell a story about what fans think this draft looks like.

And I think there's a couple of things that I'm noticing is that it doesn't seem like fans have been engaged with the McKenna debate as much as we have. And secondly, they don't realize

how close it is at the top of this draft. And that to me is really the difference here. And so I don't have a, I take zero issue with where Scott mocked them because I mocked them

in the same spot. I'm just saying it seems, that the public discourse is quite different from the kind of conversations we've been having over the course of the whole year. So basically what I'm saying is people should listen to this podcast more. I think because the group is such a big group this year, it has been harder for the casual fan to keep tabs. Like everybody knows the two wings and Keaton Verhof. That felt like the starting point for the average fan. And I don't know whether people are as in tune with where Chase Reed is at, where Carson Carroll's is at, where Daxon Rudolph is at. In previous

drafts, we had Will Smith and Adam Fantilli and Leo Carlson and there were four names you had to know. In this draft, there might be 10 or 11 names that you need to know at the top of the draft. So I do think that we're going to have to sort of introduce people to names 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 here in the coming weeks because it does feel, especially with Chase Reed, like I just don't think. think people realize the kind of talent that Chase Reed is maybe quite yet. Yeah. And so there's a bit of catch-up happening, it feels like, with our readers. To Scott, sorry, to Max's point, I had one team reach out to me within the last week

about Stenberg, and he, you know, he made an, the team source made an analogy to William Ecclund in his draft year, where everybody, every mock draft had him two, three, four, essentially in those final few weeks and he gets to the Sharks, what was at 9, where he eventually went. And now Stenberg has a much better track record of scoring than Eklin did, but you argue Eklund's better skater. But I feel like that's, you know,

it's not a novel take to say that when it's close, centers and defensemen tend to rise. And I think we all agree that this top group is close. So I don't think it should surprise anybody if a sender or defense mid or multiple go ahead of one or both of those wingers. I'm not saying it's the likely scenario. I still think we all kind of agree McKinna's the odds on favor to go one. But history has shown that that doesn't usually, that 511 wingers don't go one too.

So I don't think we should be surprised if that's not the case. Well, while we're talking about the top of the draft, let's go back there. Now that we've had a couple days to sit on this, to think about the Maple Leafs, the San Jose Sharks, specific to Toronto. I think most of our conversation centered around Gavin McKenna. Chris, I know you kind of raise the point toward the end about the idea of going for a defenseman here. But after a couple days to think about it, I mean, I kind of would almost like each of you to make the affirmative case for one of the options here, McKenna, Stenberg, or a defenseman. And I guess we're lumping all the defensemen into one.

So that's maybe the field option. But Scott, why don't you start us out? Do you want to make like the affirmative case for Gavin McKenna on the Toronto Maple Leafs? I think the case for McKenna is layered. Like it's multi-pronged, if you will. On one hand, I think he helps to sell Austin Matthews, and that is a part of this conversation for the Leafs. Like where they're at as an organization, the age of their core,

we touched on it on our live reaction. Austin's going to be 29 in September. Willie is already 30. John Tavares is on the other side of 35. They care deeply about these next two years and selling Austin Matthews. I think, and you can probably put Stenberg into this category as well, but the winger's, the fact that they're going to both play in the NHL next year and in McKenna's case, playing on the power play with Austin, that immediate guy for Austin to be drawn to potentially as a linemate, even if he's not as a linemate, the idea of him as a future linemate. I think that is a part of the calculus for Toronto. I think the fame and star power is a part of the calculus, whether anybody's willing to admit it, who Gavin McKenna is as.

as a person in the hockey world already at an early age, I think, as a part of it. And then as a player, I believe that Gavin is the most talented player in this draft. And that from a pure upside, a pure offense standpoint that he has the highest ceiling to reach for in this draft, I think it's going to be a struggle for him early on. But I have issues and flaws and nitpicks with all of the top guys in this class. And I think in Gavin, the ability to make plays, the ability to pull you out of your seat, the ability to immediately inject something onto a PP1 at the NHL level, that is unique to him. And Stenberg's a very, very, very high-end talent in his own right, but from a pure vision, playmaking, pick you apart from the perimeter of the ice skill level standpoint, he is one of one in this draft class.

And I think that's the case is just take the ultimate skill guy. And on top of that, he's Gavin McKenna and he might help you with the pitch to Austin Matthews. I think that makes a pretty compelling case if you're the Leafs. And it's also hard. Like, say what you will. Even if you like some of those other players from a perception standpoint, like it would take stones not to take Gavin at one. It's different if you move back. It also takes stones to move back when you have the first overall pick, which is why it never happens.

but from a from a pure fan base and navigating where how hot the market is in Toronto right now people want you can already tell people want it to be Gavin and that is that's a layer here too whether whether the Leafs and their brass would ever admit to that I think that's a very real layer that they won't be able to ignore not the not the first time we've heard that sentiment though right I mean especially in a major Canadian market Corey yeah we heard you know we showed up to the draft in 22 I think what was like a third of the stadium was fulled with Montreal, Shane Wright, jerseys.

Now, the distinct, and this is going to come up in this conversation, where I think the distinction is between Wright and McKenna is Wright didn't have a great season. Yeah. And there were real issues with him going into his draft. There's like there's issues with McKenna. But I feel like he played his way

out of the first pick. It's not like Slavkovsky had this absolute monster season. He had monster stretches, but he didn't have a monster season. Whereas I think McKenna has had that monster season. He had a great year in college hockey. He did what Fantilli did in college hockey.

Now, he's not a 6-3 physical centerman. He's a 5-11 not-physical winger, so there's some major distinctions there in the profile. But, I mean, all this guy has done over his entire life is score. He scored at the world juniors. He scored in college. He scored at prolific levels in junior. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a really good case to take him.

a player, but I also think that if you look at the history in Toronto, no matter what you do, you're going to get fired. You know, every GM gets fired within a couple of years. I would be more concerned of making the right pick than the perception pick, because odds are if you don't win a Stanley Cup in Toronto in the next five years, I get to the finals, and the next five years, you're going to get fired anyways. All right, so I said I wanted each of you to kind of make it an affirmative case for someone. Is there someone who you would like to make an affirmative case for for the Toronto Maple Leafs,

be it Stenberg, via Reed, anyone? Yeah, my lean is to take a defenseman here, and I'm still struggling with who that defenseman is. I kind of have, I basically have all these guys in a really tight group right now. And the three names I'm really struggling with are Reed and Verhoff and Smits. I think that McKenna and Stenberg play next year. I actually think Smits could play next year. I think there's some people in the league that think Smiths will be in the league could be in the league next year.

It might be a little aggressive. He might need a year in the American League. Kind of like how cider did, for example, since we've been using the cider example. But like I said, I think you've got to take the guy who you think is the best player. and I think just the premium position element of it would sway me a little bit. And I agree with everything Scott said. I think McKenna is the most talented play in the draft. He has the best hands in the draft.

He has the best hockey sense in the draft. He's really talented. I think it's basically a tie. So I would praise Toronto for taking McKenna. I praise him for taking Stenberg. I think they're all great players. This is not a draft with major distinctions between all these prospects. But I tend to agree with how teams have tended to do this, that when it's close, you take the premium position guys.

And I just think it's close. And I think that's really where the discussion is going to go with us over these next few weeks. We mentioned this on the show a couple days ago. You know, when you look at Scott's last list, he has Stenberg and McKenna, and then there's a tear break to read into Malhotra, into Carls, etc. I think distinguishing why there's a tier gap is more interesting than picking the name. Because if I just say it's closed and Scott says it's not. close. Okay, well, that's the end of the conversation. But I feel like if we get into why we think it's not close, it's more interesting. I think it's close. I would take a defenseman. I would rather,

and I don't think Austin Matthews is going to care whether you get a 40-point winger or a 50-point winger for one season. I think Reed and Verhoff and Smiths and Carls, they're all going to be in a league a year from now. And if you think they're the best player, they'll be just as good, not better than the wingers by year two, year three. I don't know that that's true with the struggles that we've seen defensemen. Like, we're seeing tons of top five, top 10 pick defensemen take two, three. Obviously, Schaefer's an exception. I don't think we, any of us think that any of these players are Schaefer.

Lane Hudson and Simon Edvinson might be a little bit of an exception, but it took Simon Edvinson a couple of years, too. Outside of those guys, like, we've been through the list, but Zeev Boyam, Sam Dickinson, Zane Perrek, they all get into the league and they have a really tough go initially. So I do think there is something to the fact that you might see earlier success from a Stenberg or, and maybe that's the case. Like if we're making an affirmative case for Stenberg, maybe it is that he is closer to ready to make an impact than even Gavin is potentially. And then the D-Men are. But it's, it's, I don't think it's a guarantee that any of those defensemen are any good a year from now in the NH.

or two years from now. And I'm not even convinced that some of those D man, like Chase Reed, shouldn't spend two years in college instead of one year in college, which really pushes it down the line. So that part of it, like there's risk with some of those D that you're waiting three, four years for them to figure it out. Am I crazy or did I think that Reed was just as good as McKinner or Stenberg was at the World Juniors?

Like when they were on the same eyes, I thought he was just as impactful of even strength. He was very noticeable. Very noticeable. Yeah. I just have a hard time saying that these two, these two are going to be good in the NHL in two years, but Chase needs two years of college. I just,

I don't know, I'm not saying that there's not a gap there. I don't know if the gap is that wide. I just think it's harder for defensemen in general. Yeah, the position. It's less a commentary on Chase and more about, I mean,

let's also, let's also, let's also recall about Chase Reed. This is a guy that started in the North American League two years ago, or a year and, you know, last year. And so there's still a lot of runway for him.

I do think, like, he's on a path. Maybe it's one year, but he's got to go, he's, he can't go into the league next year. But I do think if you're, if you're the Toronto Maple Leafs, these are all of the discussions you have to have. You can't rubber stamp this. You have to have these conversations. You have to think about the things that, that matter. And quite frankly, what have they been searching for for so long? What have they been certain? What has been the core? You built a team with super forwards and it didn't work. And that's, and that's the thing that, you know, you kind of, what lessons do you take from

that? There isn't a defenseman out there that I think they can trade for or get in free agency that is going to significantly improve their long-term outlook on the blue line. Yeah. That's and now that, so they're faced with an opportunity here to potentially do that. Is Gavin McKenna the flashier, more exciting, possibly more pro-ready of the options? Absolutely he is. but making that pick without addressing one of your most significant long-term needs, and I'm not saying you address needs with the number one pick because you don't, but at the same time there's an opportunity here in a draft year where it is close. And now you have to make that decision.

What is going to be the best thing for us down the road? Is it going to be a highly skilled winger? Or is it going to be a potential and not certainly not a guaranteed, but a potential top pairing defenseman? You have to go back to Boria Salming, really, to find a number one D in Toronto. Like Thomas Cabrillet wasn't a true number one. McCabe wasn't a true number one. Morgan Riley wasn't a true number one.

So there is something to that in the market, like that craving. And John Chica talked in his opening remarks about needing to remake this back end in Toronto. No, there is for sure. There's something to the premium and the scarcity of that top end right shot deep. if it's Carl's or a left shot D or a left shot D if it's Carl's right shot D if it's read those guys. There is something to how hard those guys are to find. I guess I buy that if you think McKinner or Stenberg are better,

yeah, take them because they need everything. They're not a good team. If you think there's a distinction, again, if you think like you look at these players, like kind of how Scott did you think there's a distinction here, you take the most talented player, you know, like that's some, wingers can be the most talented player. He could be, you know, if you, some people think that McKinna could be Patrick Kane.

Patrick Kane had a hell of an NHL career. You take Patrick Kane. I guess where I've seen like this discussion go, Toronto, like, oh, you got to sell Austin Matthews, you got to get the more NHL ready guy. I mean, I admit I didn't watch as much Toronto games as I thought I was going to last year just because they, other than Cowan, not a lot of young guys on that team. But they were awful, like this past season. I just looked it up.

Like, they were dead last. in Corsi percentage this past season. They were the worst 5E5 team in the league this past season. This seems like more than one player away from, okay, it's all solved, we're back on track here. Yeah, good point. Like, I don't know if I would be. But they don't have a choice.

Like the way that ownership and the new management group has already talked about it, they feel like they don't have a choice but to try to be better. And I think that's a real pressure point on them. Of course, they want to be better. They have, but they can't commit to, to the long term at this stage. They don't have their first round pick. They don't have their first round pick for the next two years. They need to try to remake that blue line and get better.

And they, we are only in Toronto a year removed from 105 points or whatever it was, right? Like it's, they, I think they still believe that with better health and better goaltending from two good goalies, that they can, not necessarily that they're going to be a hundred and five point team next year, but that they can get back into the playoff picture. I just want to add one thing, which is that even if we're talking about this on the Austin Matthews scale, and I think those are related conversations. One of the reasons Toronto needs to try to get better in the next year or two is very similar to Edmonton to kind of make that case to Matthews.

But I will say, I think you can completely justify taking Gavin McKenna at one, even if you think Austin Matthews is going to leave. And maybe that is part of why he makes sense at one if Matthews leaves is because I wouldn't want to have made a pick that was, you know, predicated on the idea of, okay, we got to, you know, build this around Matthews and then all of a sudden I don't have Matthews. Now, granted, I get he's a winger and you're probably not trying to build your team around a skilled winger. There's very few teams that are built around that player type. But I think he, because of what we've talked about with the upside, that's actually a case that even if Matthews goes,

McKenna could be the very right pick because at least you still have that 100 point player or upside of 100 point player in your system. So I think that's part of the Toronto conversation too there. I do want to shift this to San Jose, though, because especially as we talk about needs, like that is the pick that I'm looking at and saying this is a team that should draft for need really high in the draft. That's how big I think the D need is for them. And just what they have it forward is so good. Celebrini, Smith, Misa, Chernoshov, you get the great surprise there at a player picked. I think he was like 33, 32, 33.

And he looks like a potential top six forward. They have the forward system, I think, to completely justify the D pick. But there's a question, Corey. What if they really, really like Stenberg or, let's say McKenna doesn't go one or McKenna? Is that a pick you would still endorse for them, given what they have it forward and what they don't have a D? I think the analysis is pretty similar to the Toronto situation. It comes down to your evaluation of the player. I mean, if you think like this is close or it's kind of close, you know, I think sometimes we,

don't always kind of properly illustrate to our readers or listeners, just how really tight a lot of these talent groups are. You know, ultimately, you have to make a pick. You've got to have a list and you put the names in order. But like for me, the gap between like three to ten on my list is like almost nothing. Now, I realize in five years that will not be the case. Some players will be way better than

others. But as things stand right now, a lot of times it is very close, and I think it's very reasonable to look at needs. And I think in the case of San Jose, there's diminishing returns a little bit. Because you don't know for sure how someone, especially like Chernoshev, who has only so limited NHL games is going to pan out. We still don't really know what Michael Misa is ultimately going to be in the NHL. Is he going to be a first power play guy? Is he going to be like a high, high end offensive contributor?

But you've invested, you know, three top four picks now in forwards. And Celebrini, who obviously is a superstar, and Will Smith, who's looked promising in the NHL in what he does, and then Michael Misa, who had a good second half. And you've got to imagine long term that those three are part of your top power play, that that's the crux of how you're going to score goals.

And if you draft another, you know, forward of 511 wing in McKenner or Stenberg, it kind of neuters like Will Smith in a little bit, right? Or neuters one of them, because you're not probably putting them in the best position to succeed. you're probably putting one of them in like a bumper or a net front role and a power play, as opposed to you drafted someone like Chase Reed and a very seamlessly fits into that organization and the way they're building.

Sam Dickinson's not the power play guy in that organization long term. And if you get through your meetings and you say, well, Stenberg's like way better than Reed, like there's a, there's a gap here. It's like, dang it, you suck it up and you figure it out. because you can't if you leave value on the table that's long term that's where things tend to bite you but i think it's close i i don't chris you haven't really waited and know how close you think all this is i know scott doesn't think it's as close kind of thing but i yeah i mean i think it's i mean yeah go ahead scott no they are like they're two and three on my list so there's a tier

tier gap between the two of them but they're still back to back on my list so it's not as though i'm going to be calling them losers on draft night or that kind of a thing, which we tend to do. Would you take, which would you take Rita too if you were them, given the tier gap? Probably. He'd certainly be a part of a part of the conversation with where they're at. Yeah. So and for me, yes, it's, it's so tight, you know, on my working list right now, which is in public. Rita's number two for me. And that was, I've been going back and forth between the two of them for a while. You know, I even flirted with the idea of Reed being number one. I just, I couldn't get there.

But, you know, I think that what San Jose needs, and I talked about this a bit the other day, what San Jose needs is, is really they have zero right shot defensemen outside of Eric Polkamp, who they just signed out of college. You know, they have guys that are pending free agents that are right shot D like John Klingberg, but they have nothing in their system really beyond that. Matthias Havilet, if you want, you know, put him in there. So the rest are left shot defensemen. Chase Reed, you know, obviously fills a significant need within the system.

I think he plays the style that the sharks are going to play or need defensemen to play to push the pace offensively. They need guys that can move the puck. I think Eric Polkamp can do that too and down the stretch, but a little further down their lineup. So, you know, I think that there's a strong, just a very strong. strong case here that they should be thinking D. What makes it interesting to me is what happens if the Maple Leafs take Chase Reed? Then where do you go from there if you feel this intense need

to add D? And who's the next guy on your list? Is it Carl's another left shot guy? You know, like that that's that's the interesting dynamic is what if the decisions taken out of their hands, which I don't think it will be. But at the same time, that's, to me is the scenario where the sharks can come away from this draft, feeling like they've added something of significant value to them in particular. Whereas if they were to add an a Stenberg or, you know, a Kayla Malhotra or something of that nature, like, oh, okay, another forward for the orchards. We just talked about the Toronto Maple Leafs building through their forward group and look at how well that turned out. you know, we're now talking about, is this a rebuild? Is it not? What are we doing? You know, Mitch Marner's gone. Like, what is next? Um, I think that, you know, really, it's not just a need

base pick for me. This is, you know, BPA very well could be Chase Reed. I'm not, I don't think that's very like it's going to happen, but I'm kind of chuckling at the idea of like a top line in San Jose of like Celabrini between like McKenna and Will Smith. I think Smith's one of McKenna's comps, to be honest. I think he's very much on the continuum. from McKenna. He's like just like, just like, Celebrity has to win every puck battle essentially. Just funnel the pucks to Mac and just get out of the way.

So, yeah. We're way too early in the draft cycle for me to be throwing stuff like this out, but I'm going to do it anyway. If Reed does go one, Chris, would you, like, would Chicago entertain this? Would,

would you entertain this as San Jose? Would you call Chicago and say, I'll give you the second pick for Artem Levshinov and you can take one of the D that you see fit and you can come up and get one of your forwards? Oh, man, I did not anticipate that curveball from Max Bolton. I think it's a conversation. You know, I think it's certainly a conversation. I think those deals are very, very hard to make.

They're rare. Very rare, hard to make. You know, and I think Levshinov, there's probably enough, you know, seeds of doubt at this point based on his play over the last season where it's like, I don't know if I would, you know, necessarily make that, but I still think Artie's going to be a heck of a player. and there's plenty of time for him to get better. But, yeah, that'd be a tough one.

Also a good example for Scott's point earlier, given I kind of think there's a lot of analogies between Chase Reed and Levschinov at the same age. Yes. That's why I brought him up. It's like the comp that we have, Corey, you have the comp on, on Reed as Dobson.

That was the comp I think we had on Levshinov was Dobson. I've changed it lately. I've been leaning more Seth Jones, but Jones took a while to get going. but although he was pretty good year one. He was good year one, yeah. I actually like the one you put in the pessimistic and optimistic cases to John Carlson. I think that's another one that's very much in play for Chase Reed.

And I think that was a very sharp one. So just something to consider. I don't know that it needs to be Chicago. It needs to be Lev Shinov. I'm interested in the idea that I really feel like San Jose needs a D. And if they can't get the guy they want at two, I wonder if you could use two to find the guy somewhere else. Just kind of something I've thought about. I keep making the same point over an organ, but it comes down a player evaluation.

If they think that Verhoff or Smiths or Carls can run a first power play, then it changes the conversation. If they don't, then you're kind of like gritting your teeth there a little bit saying we're probably getting like a two, three defenseman here at two. Like that's not. Which is ultimately kind of what you have in Sam Dickinson. Yeah, like it's, and it might be a good, the fine pick, but like, you know, you mentioned about Will Smith McKenna. I feel like I could see Stenberg flowing in with their team a little bit better. Because I still think, because I think Stenberg has more skill than Michael Mesa. I don't think it's a guarantee that Misa's like a 70, 80 point guy in the NHL,

top power play guy in the NHL. He might be this, well, he's going to be the two C on behind Maclin. But I just mean in terms of like his actual impact. Like I think there's, he's an excellent player. I would still have him two in a redraft. I think, you know, you're still one. I think you could see Stenberg get to 80 points. in some years, I'm not sure if Mesa's going to get there consistently.

All right, I mentioned the pessimistic and optimistic takes article that you had this week on the athletic query. There's three players in particular I want to zero in on. And I'd love Chris and Scott's opinions too here on these pessimistic and optimistic cases as we go. But one of them is Caleb Balhotra, who we think could go, what, as high as three? I don't necessarily see him going two. But who knows? He could go very, very high in this draft. What do you see as kind of the swing for what this could look like in either direction, Corey?

Yeah, obviously, he's the hot name of late right now after his great OHL playoff that just ended. You know, there's some minority opinions in the league that have him at one. Like, I don't think he's going one. But that's kind of like whether the conversation is ran like, hey, this guy has at least a chance. Not a likely chance, but at least a chance to become a first line center, which obviously gets people really excited. and we haven't really had a guy in that conversation for most of this season. Lawrence was there to start the year a little bit, but obviously he's faded hard at the second half. I think people see the 6-2 centermen, the skating, the skill, the two-way play,

and the offense was a question, became less of a question the last couple of weeks here, and they think, like, there's a path here for him to become really good. Maybe he's a, maybe he's a, I don't think people think like he's a hard one, like a, like, like, what you think of, like a top 10 center in the league, but he could be like a below average one. Like, I thought a bit, my comp for him is Baneers, and Baneers is Seattle's first line center, I'll be it on a not a great team. He has, he is, you know, could be a really good two. And his trajectory is kind of similar to Beckett Seneca's a couple of years ago where not a tremendous year, but he played really big minutes on a great team, great postseason. You know, he's not six-four like Seneca.

he's not as dynamic as Seneca, but like that's kind of the trajectory. And I think there's a, like, there's not really a spot that I'd be shocked. Like I think one would drop C rattles and people a little bit, but like I think two, three, four, he's definitely in play. You like him more or less than Denoye. Similar profile a year ago. Personally, I think they're nearly the same. I think they're very, very similar players, but I don't think the league views it that way. I think Caleb does it with more pace than, or they're both.

Caleb. I think Malholtra does it with more pace than Danway A. And I think that that will be the separator there. Like I think he just thinks it a little quicker, plays with a little more pace, a little bit faster. But, I mean,

Danwaya was the QMJHL playoffs MVP a year ago, right? Like, it is a similar path in terms of the product, if you match their production side by side, combine their regular season in playoffs, obviously the OHL is a different league than the QMJHL, but they both played on top teams. They both went on deep runs.

Same size, two-way. There's some lines to draw there for sure. In a few weeks, I'll do my article comparing the top of the 26th, the top of the 25 draft, and they're basically back-to-back. All right. Another player, actually on the other side spectrum here is Vigo Bjork, because I think this is going to be one of the most popular players in this class among the public. I love him.

I think all of you guys love him. The question is our NHL. team's going to love him because he's a five-nine center. They certainly would love the optimistic case you made, Corey, which included the name Braden Point. But I do want, like, to me, Bjork does feel like he's still going to slot in as a really likable player in the NHL because of how hard he plays, because of how smart he is. But we see time and again, if teams don't think it's high, high upside for these five,

nine guys, it can be hard for them to get into the top 10, which is where I think he belongs on talent. So there was a player four years ago, who was 5'9, who skated pretty well, who was really skilled, who had a history of really great production, who everybody liked how feisty and competitive he is, and he went top 10. Name is Matthew Savoy. Didn't really work. And I think that's the concern with Bjork, is you want Braden Point, but you're worried about Savoy and Rossi, who both went in the top 10. and I think that's going to be the risk reward the teams are going to measure.

I think you saw Nazar when 13 probably goes a little higher than 13 probably got underrated there. Benson goes higher. Yeah, Benson goes higher. Like different levels of skating there, but I get what you're saying. But he's also a better skater than Rossi.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's why I think of, I think Savoy is the mo on 0.1. But that's, but obviously he's a center versus a wing pro experience, world junior experience, that senior men's team experience. Like, he's got to have one of the

widest ranges for me in terms of when I do mock drafts. Like, I have had teams say, don't be surprised if he goes five, and don't be surprised if he goes 15. Yeah. Like, I mean, Cole Coffield won 15. Like, I don't think you probably split the difference. Like, I think it'll be Caleb, those wings,

a bunch of the D. And then I think that's where the conversation really picks up. for for Vigo for most teams when push comes to shove. Yeah, I agree. It's probably around 10. Do we think Vigo will go ahead of Tynne and Lawrence? I think there's a very real chance of that now. I do too.

And yeah, he's interesting. But they're going to, I bet you they're drafted within three picks of each other. Probably. Yeah, I think the concern on Vigo, which I kind of said in the article, is obviously, if he's brain point, you're jumping up and down. He's a stud. And like, and he very well. could be. I mean, I've watched him, when I watched, obviously, when we watched with the

World Juniors, I think we thought we could agree he was just as good, if not better than Stenberg at that event. The two times I've watched him play against Frolanda, one was on video, and one was, I was actually live at that game overseas. He played better than Stenberg in those two SHL games. Like, he's a sick player. You could be a really, really good NHL player. But the issue is if you're 5-9 and you don't point at a really high level, a coach is going to bury you. Like, Matt Savoy's only playing right now on Edmonton because they have nothing else. Like if he was on a team with actual deep forward group, he would be a healthy scratch fourth liner right now kind of thing. So it's tough.

And that's the risk reward that teams are going to have to assess with this kind of players. If you really believe in him, then he deserves to go as high as five or six. I like Scott's Benson point. I mean, Zach Benson plays a huge role. for Buffalo right now. It might be third line, but he's a key player. Was he good last night? Right.

I think he's got a real chance to win a Selke. I told this to Dom the other day. I think he's got a chance to win a Selke. Like defensively, he's already driving results at a very high level and a good team. The points are maybe not quite there to win a Selke at this stage. But if he can become a 50, 60 point guy and the defense holds, I think you're talking about, all of a sudden talking about that sort of Seth Jarvis player that's, an excellent, excellent defensive player on top of chipping in top six offense. And I think that's a,

that's a real path for Zach. He's, I love Zach. Zach's a dog. Like he's, and he, and that showed, too, like in his draft year. Like, that was like, he was probably one of the, if not the most competitive player in his draft class. And it was just like, this guy is going to find a way. And I think with Vigo, every time I watch him play, this every single time. And I've seen even games, where he wasn't that good. I was like, this guy's going to play. He is going to play. He knows how to play the sport.

He knows how to play the game at a high level. Watching him in the playoffs this year, there were games where he was better than Frundel. Like, there were games where he was better than older players. They were using him as a matchup center. Yes. SHL top lines late in the year. They couldn't put him out there enough at the World Juniors.

He was their number one center at the World Juniors as an underage. He's a rare talent. in that there are exceptions to the rule. To Corey's point, the risk remains because of the size. But I do feel like he has enough of the variables that make him an exception where you will see a 5-9 center go potentially in the top 10. Devil's advocate argument is as good as he looked when I watched him in the S-HL, as good as he looked at the World Juniors. his actual production this year in the SHL was fine.

It was literally half of Stenbergs, I think, right? 15 and 30. Even at the World Juniors, I remember us talking about a game where he missed on like six breakaways in one game. He got his breakaways, but he wasn't finishing him. Like for a guy who needs to point

and point a lot to be a top six guy, like I think you got to at least mention that. Even if we think like, yeah, he creates a lot of chances, he's around the puck all the time. He's so competitive, yada, yada. Like, you know, that's something I at least think about. Like, okay, is this good offense or is it a lead offense?

Yeah. We got about five minutes left here. But, Corey, there's one more player who I want to talk to you about on this list. And it's a player who I don't think is really going to get the chance to make a closing, or is not going to get the chance to make a closing statement. But I think might have been a player who, where they healthy, might have risen up draft boards at this time of year. That's Ethan Belches in Windsor.

Look, the profile here is one that NHL teams are going to fall in love with. Six foot five power winger with a big shot. I think there's real offense in his game. There's a real chance I think that this is like a 60 point power winger, which goes top 10 all day. But offense was up and down at times in Windsor. Like, and it's, you know, because he didn't get to have the on paper production, the closing statement, like where do you see Ethan Belch's range being?

I think it's closer to like 10 to 16 right now, and that's for two reasons. One is not the great year, concerns over his pace. I mean, he produced, but like he was fine, not amazing production. And also his major events, his Holinka Gretzky, his CHL NTPP games were average at best, if not below average. That's the first variable. The second one is that player type, the big physical winger. There's been a couple of guys who've emerged who can compete for that. I think there's a lot of interest in NHL and Oscar Hemming right now, the Finnish winger at Boston College.

He's not as big as Belchese, but he skates better. Same thing for Glepukachev and Russia. I think those are two guys who are like mean, physical, big wingers. And I think they're all kind of going to go in like the top 20 to 20-ish range. But that's, I think, the issue on Belchicev and also only so many wingers are going to go like top 20. Eventually these centers and these defensemen are going to work their way into the mix too. So, you know, it's tough. I think there's a lot of people who loved this player initially.

There were scouts I talked to earlier who said he's going top five all day. Then as you're going, okay, maybe he's like top 10, like top eight. And now as the draft has unfolded and we've seen the rise as the guys like Gus of Sin and White Colin and Hemming to an extent, I don't know if he's even a guarantee to go in the top 15, although I think he's still probably going to go there. Because even if the offense isn't great and his skating isn't great. It's so hard to find players like this. Like you look at the Proto's brothers like they're not great skaters, but they could still find a way to impact it a game.

And with the physicality and the skill and the size, it's still a really good player. I mean, there was a time here where we were, I mean, I think we used the name Slavkovsky talking about the best case scenario for Belches. He doesn't skate like Slavkovsky, but I left the rink. I saw him live once in late October and then once a week later in a different city

in early November. and both of those times leaving the rink, I ran into people who were talking about him as a top five stud. At that, that was October November. At that time, that was the conversation. We get new data, I get it. But even in your most recent ranking, Scott,

I think the name Matthew Nyes is somewhere in that write-up there, so as what he could be. I think a lot of teams would absolutely love a chance at a player like that. I do wonder if he has that sort of competitive consistency that Nise had. Yeah. I don't think it's a huge issue in the way that it is for a rubric or Marcus Nordmark or those types of guys where the competitiveness is a huge red flag. But there were games this year where he disappointed people with his impact.

And at that size, in the OHL, you should be a horse every night. All right, that's going to do it for us. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect series. Remember, you can catch more of Chris over at Flow hockey. his podcast called up. We'll talk to you soon.