The Athletic Hockey Show - Can Gavin McKenna be the next Nikita Kucherov?

Episode Date: September 19, 2025

On today’s episode, the guys dive into both Scott’s 2025 NHL Prospect Tiers, his own placement of 120 or so under-23 players into the different tiers, then vetted by scouts and executives, as well as Corey’s first 2026 NHL Draft ranking of the season, headlined by Gavin McKenna in the No. 1 spot. Plus, the guys close things out with some listener questions in the mailbag.Got a question? Ask it here: t.co/fYieuQEg14Hosts: Max Bultman, Corey Pronman, and Scott WheelerExecutive Producer: Chris FlanneryProducer: Chris Flannery Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Hey, everybody, Max Boltman here alongside Scott Wheeler and Corey Prondman for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. And guys, it's about that time. Exciting weekend of rookie tournaments across the league. There was a really good piece on the Athletic Tuesday, the NHL Rookie Camp Roundup with some of the biggest standouts from all of those tournaments. Would highly encourage people to check that out. But we have such a busy day on tap that we're. We're not even going to really spend much time on that.

We're going to get right into some of the stuff you guys have dropped this week. And that's going to start out with Scott's prospect here. This is a story very much in the mold of the player tiers that Dom and Sean and Shana do, focusing on some of the under 23 players across the sport. And I want to start Scott with what you identified as one of the kind of biggest debates among scouts. And it was a player that Corey and I were a little surprised to hear was very debatable. It's the number one overall pick in this most recent draft, Matthew Schaefer. What made that a hot debate?

as you were reporting out this story. Yeah, I was surprised by that as well. You start to think about the U23D, and I think naturally D are just trickier for people to evaluate, and there's always a little less of a consensus amongst evaluations on defensemen than there are on forwards. And we've talked about the tricky nature of Matthew Schaefer in terms of the lost time and the lack of games played, and I think that was a part of it for some people, just hesitancy and being bullish on Matthew Schaefer and in slotting Matthew Schaefer as the presumpting

sort of highest ranked D prospect in these buckets. But the way I approached it was I reached out to Dom and I said, where has Muriel Heiskinin, who is the most common comp that we use for Matthew Schaefer, where has Meryl Heiskinin been? And Dom sent me the data for player tiers over the last few years. And four of those years, he was Tier 2B. And then this year he actually got moved up to Tier 2A. To the surprise of Dom, he said, Dom and Shana and Sean, they said,

because they actually felt themselves that he sort of had a worse year last year and that he didn't belong sort of in tier 2A. But scouts were really bullish on Miro Heiskenen. So I started that's, that was the basis for me starting Matthew Schaefer in tier 2A. And then you sort of had in a slight tier below just below him, you had Owen Power and Lou Q's and sort of the other top D that we talked about in our U23 draft last year or last week. But then you, I heard back from multiple scouts who were like, I really, I don't know if there's going to be enough offense. there in Schaefer to get to that sort of high-skinen level, to get to that premium true number one defenseman sort of level offensively. And we'd heard a little bit about that throughout the year, but a few people mentioned it. And then on the flip side, I sort of highlighted him as

hotly debated because then I had people who said, those people are crazy. Like I reached back out to some other people with that feedback from a few folks who were saying sort of, I'm not sure about Schaefer and I reached out to a few people who were like, I think, Schaefer could be higher. I think the world of Matthew Schaefer, I think he's going to be one of the top defensemen in the sport, and he has all of the makings that you look for, and I'm stunned that other scouts aren't as excited as I am kind of thing. And so I ended up kind of pitting people to get against each other, if you will, and sort of sharing certain messages with other people to try to sort of get feedback and get consensus. And there never really was. There were people who were a little more hesitant

on Schaefer than I was expecting. And then another group that was sort of bullish in the other direction. And ultimately, I just ended up leaving him in 2B because that's where Heiskenen's been. And he still seemed to be the consensus top D. And I think if I'd slotted Luke Hughes or Owen Power or any of the other, Lane Hudson or any of the other D is the number one D. I expect that I would have had similar feedback. Maybe the solution would have been to have them all in sort of the same tier.

but the more I talked to the people who were bullish on Schaefer, the more they felt that that just wasn't the case and that he was sort of, at least right now, he was alone in terms of the talent and the skating and the upside. Hayfkin obviously has only played seven years in the league, but he's only been above 40 points twice, and he basically had the 73-point year and the 54-point year and that's really been it from him in terms of significant offense.

I'm not sure where that's an argument, you know, four against Timber, four against Schaefer, but I think it's interesting when we talk about Schaefer and his offensive upside and comparing him to guys like a Haskidden is that, you know, what is Hayeskid in the NHL right now? I think those are,

I think those would be, you know, relevant debates, not too unlike our, you know, our Hudson, Adam Fox debates that were infamous on the last couple of episodes. And with the emergence of Thomas Harley there, it's almost even cloudier now for Heiskenen moving forward than it's been in recent years where he was just the presumptive guy in offensive situations. I got to imagine that's up in the air, right?

There's no way like Harley's locked in as the first powerplay guy for the next decade. Like I got to imagine there's going to be some healthy competition there going forward. Worth noting that even at Tier 2B for Matthew Schaefer, that makes him the number three under 23 player on this collection. So it's really a matter of, and Scott, maybe I should have said this off the top. The goal here is not you're tiering them by where they stand today. The goal is where you think they will land when they eventually are in player tiers. So it's very forward-looking.

It's kind of that style of story. Yeah. And it's not even a true ranking. The order of the players within the tiers isn't even an order in and of itself. They're just more buckets than a true list. How many players since they've been doing that project? And I was on it for a couple of years, how many players got that higher rating and weren't on a competitive team, or at least on a consistent playoff team.

It's a good question. I think that has a big factor in how we view guys, right? Like I think it's hard. We saw it with kind of Austin Matthews this year. And obviously Matthews individual production did dip a bit. But it's hard not to wonder if one of the reasons Austin Matthews is kind of separated from some of that top tiers, he's had by far the least success of any of those guys. I guess I just asked because I feel like we've seen the honors,

we wonder what the direction is. But if we're thinking that Schaefer is in that category of player, I think we're basically insinuating. We think, you know, the Islanders are destined to be a consistent playoff team now for a very long time, essentially, which I don't think is unreasonable, but I think it'd be quite a statement given where the organization is currently right now. Oh, there's a lot of question marks there still. All right. Let's go to a couple guys that we haven't talked as much about on the show, at least not lately. Certainly in their draft years, we talked a lot about Cole Eisenman and Jonathan Lekker-Omaki.

But, Scott, these are players who I think we probably could have brought up when we talked about Corey's, U23 list in the recent episodes as guys that were ranked a lot lower than I think any of us would have expected at the time of their drafts. What is the state of kind of the industry consensus on Cole Eisenman and Jonathan Lekaramaki? Yeah, frankly, those two and I coward, I kind of lumped into the same group because all three of them sort of fit into that scoring archetype, the camp on each of the three to varying degrees is that they're one dimensional, that they don't have the B game, that they're not going to be that get to that support tier or to that star tier.

So tier four or tier five, because they will never be as valuable to their team as maybe their power play numbers might indicate or that kind of a thing. So they were, I knew going into it that, unlike with Schaefer where I was a little surprised, I knew going into that those three would be tricky and that there would probably be a debate for some between excluding them all together. and then the bullish camps that believe that they were maybe four C guys, that they could be low-end stars if they hit. And I'm constantly when I'm doing this,

comparing it to where current players are in player tiers. So I was looking back at where was Patrick Linae when he was at his best? Now, Patrick Linae isn't even on it right now. So it wasn't even included in player tiers this year, for example. But Patrick Line, Alex DeBringkitt, Cole Cofield, where are those guys who are now established in player tiers or in Linae's case outside of player tiers? where do those guys slot?

And can the Ike wards, can a Cole Eiserman, can a Jonathan Lechirmecke sort of get to that consistent level where you're a top six forward on your team? And even if you're maybe a little imperfect, are you scoring 30 goals in the league? And one of the things that we've done in prospect here is when we've put together the contention cycle, which is kind of a companion piece that runs on Wednesday,

is we've actually modeled that the guys who are in Tier 5 actually only have like a 20. 25% chance to make it. And then the guys who are in tier four, we've assigned a 50% chance to make it. So we're not saying definitively that all of these players are going to hit their mark. Certainly the tier one and tier two guys you'd expect to get there. But there's a lot more volatility inherently in an Iserman or in a Howard or in a Lekaramaki. And there was predictably a lot of feedback on all three of those players. There are people who believe that they can get to that low end sort of star, that 4C kind of

range, that they can be top power play scorers in the league, and that they can be second line wingers in the league, and that they'll be able to score. I heard from people on each of those three players who said that they believed in that as a possibility. And then there were others who were unsure if they should even be ranked. And so ultimately, they ended up, I think they all ended up in some version of ABC and tier five. But it's tricky to slot those guys, because even with a 25 or a 50% likelihood that we've

assigned to them, it still feels like it might not even be 25% for some of those guys. And yet, if they do hit, they're probably impactful scorers on their teams and better than some of the other players that were on the list. So it's that game with scouts of sort of trying to find the sweet spot. Yeah, and for the context, when I did my U23 rankings, I had Likramaki clearly one of those three. And I think for me, it was just the fact that he's shorter versus men, which I think is always the biggest question with this player type is how does it translate in the shl and at times in north

america versus men even if inconsistently he showed he could be productive and he can score which is a valuable indicator and howard i think one of the very last players on the list and ianer was one of the last cuts um he didn't make it actually and i thought completely confident he's going to play so you know if you did a 50-50 there i would say the coin lands one way on howward and the coin lands the the way on Eisenman, but you could reasonably argue it the other way. But I think a theme, what we've been doing this show now for, I don't know how many years we've been doing this for, but it's, we're getting up there, guys, we're getting older, is that I think we've recognized the irony that in a sport where the main object of the game

is to score more goals than the opponent, probably the one player type that drives evaluators, scouts, coaches, management, whoever the craziest are goal scores, in that the guys. guys who tend, it's just a correlation, the guys who tend to be great goal scores, for whatever reason, don't tend to be extremely competitive, they don't tend to be extremely great passers, they don't tend to be high-end skaters. So it's, and obviously the guys who are, they're special players. But we've seen all over the years, you know, Zadino, you know, Owen Tippett, Ely Tollivan, and Oliver Walsstrom. Kiefer Bellows.

Bellows would be one, Alex Holtz. There's a bunch of these guys that are just very frustrating players. And if they don't do other things, well, with Lekra Maki, I think there's pretty good hockey sense there. It's more than just a shot. But I think with, and with Eisenman, that's the question. Is there more than just a shot there? And with Howard, I think it's, you know, like, well, he's kind of scrawny. You know, how is it going to hold up against men?

I think with Lekaramaki, showed it could a little bit. whereas in previous years you wonder if he was too soft and perimeter, still think that sometimes, but less so lately. And it's why, you know, this player type, despite what you would already calli of, who's, you know, that's obviously his own set of debates right there. But, you know, that's, you know, that player type just tends to be very frustrating. And I think that's, you know, Scott mentioned Cole Coffield. I think that's where Cole Coffield differentiates himself, right?

Is there's a lot more going on with Cole Coffield's game than just, you know, sliding it and finish in a shot. He's very skilled. He's very smart. He can compete pretty well from time to time. But that took Scott's question about B game, that's why he fell, was that everybody recognized he has an elite shot. He has elite skill.

But I think when teams were looking at him in the draft, they were wondering, well, if he doesn't score 30 plus goals a year, what do you get in here? And the answer is probably like a, you know, Daniel Sprong essentially, like a guy who's in and out of the lineup who's, you know, not really a guy who could help your team in any meaningful way. And obviously, I loved Cole Caulfield. I guess for God sometimes, but it's fine. But look, you know, I loved him, and I thought he could be that 30, 40 goal score.

And, you know, despite his size, I thought he had special traits. But I think that's the thing with that, those players is they need to have special, special traits. Yeah, I mean, it's a little bit like in the NBA, right? The most important thing you can do is shoot threes. But if all you do is shoot threes, you're probably more of a sixth or seventh man than a core piece. All right, let's go to our next thing, Scott, that I wanted to talk about, which is I know when you produce this list, you're sending it around to people and getting feedback. And I was curious if there's anyone that the scouts and executives really felt strongly should move up that surprised you.

The only one was Logan Stankovin that really surprised me. I started Logan Stankovin in Tier 4A. And I've always been very, very high on Stank. I had him, I believe, 18th on my list in his draft year. And I viewed him as a first rounder then. I've been bullish on the player. but despite the fact that he's now been paid like he's a top end player, I don't think we've yet seen that out of him. And so I thought the 4A tier was generous. For those who are unfamiliar with

the tiers, it goes MVP, franchise, all-star, star, and support. So a 4A means you're a legit star in the league. Like, you're a legit top six player impact guy on a very good team kind of thing. And scouts actually pushed repeatedly, multiple scouts, pushed to move him into 3C and to put him in the same group as Matthew Nyes and Kent Johnson and Denton Mantechuk and Roger McQueen and Caden Lindstrom and Simon Edvinson and players who I think we would all agree have either proven more or would be viewed in a, or we would expect would be viewed in a consensus in higher regard. And so that did surprise me a little bit because it, I think, speaks to the respect that. Stank sort of garnered first in Dallas and then obviously recently in Carolina. And the belief that he is going to be a huge piece of the puzzle and that even if he's not Sebastian Ajo, that he can become a really, really important sort of number three, number four forward for the hurricanes and a big part of what they're building. And I just wasn't, I wasn't expecting that to be the

consensus. I would expect maybe a couple of people to believe in that as an outcome. But I didn't hear from a single person who said move stank down. And I heard from four or five people who were advocates for him as a tier three C guy. And so I made the move to move them up. Yeah, I mean, playoff production right now. He has, in terms of what he's proven, that is one of the hardest things to prove, especially for that player type. It's hard to predict, I should say. He's proven it by having a couple good playoff runs. All right, we're back. And we're going to pivot now into a story that Corey had dropped this week. Your first ranking of the 2026 draft class.

Actually, you kind of had some way too early lookaheads last year, but your first ranking of the actual draft season for 2026. No surprise at the top, Gavin McKenna at number one in a tier of his own. But I think what is interesting, Corey, is kind of putting McKenna into context with other recent top draft picks. And the fact that he's a winger is notable in that, right? I mean, Macklin-Cellibrini is a center not really a comparable for Gavin McKenna. You can probably make a little more of a case for Connor Bedard,

because I think the position is still a little more of a question there. But how do you kind of view him among that cluster of top wingers of the last recent draft classes, whether it's Ivan Demadob, Maffi Mitzkov, some of the other guys? I would ray him ahead of both for those guys, but I don't think I'd put him light years ahead of them. You know, he's bigger than Mitchkov, better skater than both of them, not quite as hard or physical as a guy like Nemadov, all three. them obviously marvelous offensive talents. I think when you look at McKenna,

I think his skating is excellent to go at the fact that he's so dynamic offensively. So I think he's ahead of those guys. Bedard obviously is a center. So that's a variable. I think he's more competitive too. And that's why he can play the middle, even though we have debates about what his long-term

projection is the moment he is in an NHL center and he did as a teenager for two years. So that's quite notable. And it was obviously a pro, Junior Center as well. So that's kind of where I feel with him. Like, you know, if I look back among the years, like, where I have guys rated at similar points, like, you're talking about maybe closer to, like, where Mitch Kov and

Demadov are, where Adam Fantilli was as a prospect, I think he might have been ahead of all those guys at the end of the day if I had to do, like, a preseason list. But he'd be behind celebrating. He'd be behind Bada for me, those potential superstar number one centers. You know, when I think we're thinking about projecting into the league, I think the names we're going to hear often are going to be Mar. It's going to be Panera and it's going to be Kuturov if you're a big believer. The biggest believers call him Patrick Kane, although I thought we just had Patrick Kane two years ago.

So are there two Patrick Keynes now in the league? And while the old one is still playing, mind you, I think that'd be a fascinating debate, but that's kind of currently where I would situate him. And, you know, he's going to play really good competition this year when the Big Ten schedule gets started. Those back-to-back weekends games Long Island and Stonehill, not with Stan. ending. So we'll get to see how he plays against better players and it'll be, you know, and maybe he does rise that special level, but that where he is in that Padard-Colbrini conversation. But for what I've seen to date, I'd have a little hesitancy getting him right there at the moment. I think that'll

surprise some people to hear Scott because, you know, we've talked about McKenna for three years now. That's what happens with a lot of these like exceptional status kids that you can see coming from a mile away. And the late birth dates. That's right. Yeah. We talked about, we talked about Hagen's forever. Exactly. So there's a lot of runway there. Some people will say that that leads to nitpicking. Some people, I think we'll just say like the hype train gets out of control. Where do you fall on kind of McKenon? And do you think Corey's assessment there is fair? Yeah, I think Corey's assessment is fair. I don't think you're quite at a spot where you can place him in the Celebrini-Badard tier. But in saying that, I think he is, as far as recent wingers go in a class of his own, and I was very, very high on both Demadov and Meechkov, had both of them top three on my list in very good draft years.

But I still think he does in terms of the way that Michikov thinks it and in terms of the puck skill that Demadov has, I think he does those things and he just does it with more pace. I think he's a better skater and I think that will be a bit of a differentiator for him. He's very lean, but he's also about an inch taller than both of those other kids. So I think the wingers that Corey mentioned, that's the conversation that you're having. I do think a little bit about, obviously, Jack Hughes is a center as well, but I do think a little bit about Jack Hughes when I think about him. I think Marner makes a lot of sense when you're talking about him. and then obviously Kutrov and Panarin would be the very, very, very, very high end.

The one thing with McKenna, and I try not have to put too much stock in the international events, but the one thing with McKenna is that when we've watched him at the U-20 level to date, when we were watching Bedard, for example, at the same age, Baddard just lit it up, like just grabbed hold of it. And whether it's last year's World Juniors or especially considering he's a late birthday and Bedard was a summer birthday, whether it's last year's World Juniors or the summer showcase this summer where I thought he completely, like this summer in Minneapolis, I thought Gavin blended in. And I remember watching this whole-a-go was terrible too for his standards. Yeah. Now, U-18 Worlds, he basically single-handedly won Canada gold medal or maybe holding Trevor Connolly's hand. He single-handedly won Canada gold medal.

But he just hasn't, like, when we watch Bedard at 16, we entered that selection camp when Badard was 16. They didn't think he was going to make the team. And then he scored four goals in a game against a team of U-Sports All-Stars who were 23-year-old men. He scored four goals as a 16-year-old and just walked his way onto that team. Now, that tournament got canceled due to the pandemic. And he only played a couple of games in that tournament. But we haven't seen that from McKenner.

We didn't see it at the summer showcase the summer. We didn't see it at last year's World Juniors. So I do wonder whether. And in those couple of games that got canceled, he was one of their best players in each of those games, mind you. Yes. And so I think we're going to see him lighted up in college,

and that's going to earn him the first overall pick. But I'll be interested to watch this year's World Juniors, because I want to see Gavin playing with his peers be like the unquestionable best player on that team. Like it can't be that Zane Perrek or Sam Dickinson or Berkeley Caton or Porter Martone or Caden Lindstra? It can't be that they're his equals. Like he has to just be better than them.

So I think there's going to be some interesting litmus tests for him this year, the college game being the big one. But I'm interested to see the world juniors and two as a measuring stick. I think he should be. I mean, he's way more skilled than anybody on that team. He should be their entire offense. That being said, though, like wouldn't that just basically be what happened? been with Lafrenier in his draft year, essentially.

And I think the differentiator now is you probably say McKenna is a much, much better skater than Lafrenier is. But that's, you know, this is why I have issues when people call somebody generational. Because there's, like, how many generational guys have we had in the last decade here already between Badaard? Virtually every year. I mean, it's just power in Slavkovsky are the only ones people weren't calling generational. You know, yeah, you know what I'm trying to say, as a joke. Because, you know, I think if he comes to, I think Jack Hughes is the one name I've heard as well from Scouts. And I think that's perfectly fair.

But, you know, and I love Jack. And I know Scott loves Jack. And he's a star and he's, you know, a impact player on a team I think is going to make, could be a strong contender this year in New Jersey. But, you know, is that what level of player is that? I don't know where they were. He wasn't a player tier. So I presume it was high.

But, you know, like, these are semantics, I guess. We all agree McKenna is a fantastic player. I would say on McKin, like, the McKenna Lafranier piece of the puzzle, like, it is noteworthy that McKenna. while being a month different because McKenna's December and McDavid was January. McKenna has outproduced McDavid at the OHL or the CHL level through all two of his full seasons at that level. Like his Lafranier was doing 100, Lafranier was doing 100 plus points.

McKenna was doing 130 kind of thing. So I do think that that sort of pedigree, there is more pedigree there for him than some of the recent stars that have come through. He was every bit as productive as Connor Bedard. But it's just that that brings me back again to let's see it in college this year and let's see it at the World Juniors and just put the conversation to rest kind of thing. If he is like those guys, he will show it. Corey, I think the thing that stood out to me the most about the first iteration of this list is that there is only one center in the top 12. And that's Tyne and Lawrence.

He's at number five. A, I guess let's start with Lawrence and talk about what puts. him there. And then I got another question for you about the center crop as a whole here. But Lawrence at five, I mean, what puts him in that kind of company? I mean, he's just a do it all player. You know, when I was at the Hinkogreski, he was the one guy on Canada. The entire league was buzzing about, even though he didn't have a great statistical performance. He's an outstanding skater.

He's super competitive. He's a two-way centerman. He ran their power play. He's very skilled. I wouldn't say it's elite elite offense in his game. But, you know, just, you look at his last year in the USHL playoffs. He's basically the pillar of that Muskegon team, and he helps win them a championship at 16 years old as the MVP of their playoffs.

Just a really likable all-around centerman that you could talk about. And, you know, with some of the top recent center prospects in the last few years, like that he's super likable. But to your point, after that, it gets very unclear where the next center is coming from. And even the guys who are quote-unquote centers, like Vigo Bjork, like Thomas Turenko, you look at them and really wonder if their NHL centers or not. Marcus Nordmark could be an NHL center.

Oliver Savanto could be an NHL center, but I think you're wondering how high-end those guys really are. Jack Hextall. Yeah, I mean, Hextall is an NHL centers or big maybe for me. At least it's a top two line guy. Like, that's a big maybe there. And then you, like, you know, in the case of Savanto, like, he could be. I think he's got to prove it this year a little bit more.

He had a great Holinka. He looked like that guy for a week there. He's still, he's got to back it up, though, and do it over the course of the year. But yeah, it's pretty, like, bleak there afterwards. And I'm sure guys are going to emerge. I'm sure there's somebody I'm not mentioning here that I'm disrespecting. You know, but I can't think of, like, an obvious name here that I'm just super low on relative to the league or others, anyone else I talk to, really. that plays the middle

that projects us at the NHL center right now like nobody thinks Fitzgerald's the top two line center the league likes Fitzgerald they don't like love him same thing with Alessandro DiOrio they think they kind of project

his bottom six centers in the NHL right now maybe one of those guys has like a huge year and shows more offense than we inspect like maybe there's a Jack Nesbit in here somewhere

that I'm disrespecting at the moment but I don't know like who am I forgetting here no you're not Well, I guess my point, though, is like, it's hard for me to see getting through a top 10 with only one center being, I mean, last year was a fantastic center class. And you still see this late push for Nesbit to go up at number 12 because that's how important it is for teams to find centers in the draft. So maybe it is Bjork. I mean, Bjork's the guy whose name we've heard longest.

But I think the physical profile there is not the one teams really tend to, you know, get really aggressive for, Scott. That'd be like 2012, only one center in the top 10. I'll be interested to see if Rubrik ends up playing center. He obviously played that in minor hockey all the way up before playing wing the last little bit in Niagara. So if they start him on center all year and he plays a full year of center, I think that could change the calculus for the way that teams think about Rubrik and sort of the excitement level around Rubrik. But I agree with that. Although like the early asking around I've done is it feels like he's going to start on the wing. That might change, obviously.

I think he's, I think they're going to put, I think Patterson is going to be there. first line center to start the year. And the question with Rubrik has always been sort of, does he have the motor, the engine, that sort of competitive fire to be a center? He's a big man with a ton of skill who can rip the puck. And the default seems to be that he might be more of a winger. So it's tough. Yeah, I don't think there's anybody at the next level who's like slotting him in as a first line center or a second line center right now based on what he's shown in junior to date. He's going to need to get a different player this year to prove people he's in the HL Center.

Let's stay on Rubrik here because he's number three on your list, Ryan Rubrik from Niagara, and he's one of two really big wingers that you have in Tier 2, the other being Ethan Belkitts from Windsor. These are players that I think we've discussed, but maybe some of the listeners either haven't heard those episodes or could use a little deeper dive on here. So can we compare and contrast, Corey, Ryan Rubrik, and Ethan Belkitts for people? Sure. Yeah, I thought the way Scott described Rubik was exactly how I view him. He's 6-3-6-4 wing who skates well with a high-skill level, who is a shoot-first player.

I mean, definitely more of a goal scorer than a passer and who's maybe not the most competitive. I feel like we had this conversation recently. I don't remember when. Anyways, moving on. And then you have Belkentz who I think there's going to be some minor questions until he proves otherwise on the offense. But just an absolute mammoth of a 17-year-old. Like he's, I think, I think when you get to Hohlinca, they measured him at like six, five, two hundred and thirty pounds. And when you talk to Belkets in person, like, it's pure muscle.

Like, he's just, he's completely built. One of the most physically advanced under 18 players I've seen. And then you add that he's a good, pretty good skater for his size. I don't think he's fast, but he's good enough. He's got skill. He's very physical. There's a lot there to like. like I don't think he's this player at this point,

but it's not offensive to me to, like to draw a line to like Landishcock at the same point in their draft years and wonder if that could be the projection there in some ways. And, but I think there's going to be some minor question just quite how much offense he has. Like at the Flink, he didn't really make many plays

to his teammates, for example. A lot, like he's great at making skill plays to the net and creating around the net. But, uh, I think, think his hockey sense is a minor question right now. The thing with Belkets for me, too, is when you are that big, at this stage, like, I want to see him dominate this year. Like, if he's just a very good OHL player and a power forward in the league and all of that,

I think that's all well and good, but he should be a force at that level or questions of whether he's sort of maxed out will start to crop up closer to the draft. Like, he had some moments last year. He scored a hat trick in his first OHL game last year and got people talking and had some really nice stretches last year. But there were questions as to just how consistent he was with that team. And he's going to have to put those to bed because he's just so much bigger and stronger than everybody already that he needs to be a force out there. And I think he has that in him. I think he has a chance to be a top five conversation guy in this draft class for sure.

But he's going to need to – I don't think he can be a 60-point guy this year, like a point per game guy. get there. Like, he needs to look like he's just overwhelming teams, I think. I think there's some rhymes here, both from how they talk about the player in terms of the projection. Oh, they, we talked by the time of the draft to Matt Nyes. I think you can make those arguments as well. Yeah. Well, Matthew Nyes is a guy who I think would go pretty well in this top 10, if not a little bit higher in a redraft. So, well, it's, it's always the funny thing when you talk about the guys like this who are just absolutely lead off the charts athletes. They're like, I don't know about this.

I don't know about that. I don't know about this. And then you ask the teams of Hawaii taking, well, the top six for sure. Because at the end of day, you could only, those guys are still pretty rare, especially in the sport of hockey. Yeah. We know the league loves the big power wingers. The league does not always love the small skilled defenseman.

But Corey, you've got one of those really high up on your list. Xavier Villeneuve, uh, from the QMJHL, uh, you put the kale McCar, Quinn Hughes names in the blur. I know that's not necessarily what you're saying, but you say he's the closest thing you've seen to that type since their draft years. Yeah, and I'll say I know, like usually sometimes I'll ask around on player before I'm just from doing my research. And at the end of the day, the opinion is my list.

And I'll tell people what I'm hearing in the league or what I think is being reflected. This is my opinion. I'm way out on a limb here. This is not what I'm hearing in the league at all in terms of where they have Villeneuve. I think he's being more projected in like that late first, high second. If the draft was today, obviously, we have a long way to go here. But I think this guy is a dynamo.

Like, I really do. Like, I think he gives you the special small guy vibes that you want to see. It's what I saw in a guy like Caulfield or a guy like Quinn Hughes when they were draft eligible. And we'll see how Villeneuve looks this year. But I think the skating's high end. I think the skill is high in. I think it's offensive hockey sense is high end. He's just small and not physical, and those are major issues, but I think he's got game-breaking offensive tools, and we'll see how it goes here.

But this is a guy that just excites me whenever I watch him, and I think he's got the potential to be, you know, that next great small defenseman in the league. I will say, too, I heard this week in Buffalo at the rookie tournament there that he is up to 5-11. from 510. So if NHL Central scouting confirms that measurement for him, I think that that will matter to scouts, whether our listeners think that's fair or unfair. It does matter.

I'll ask the obvious question that the listeners are thinking right now is you like him better or worse than Lane Hudson? Better. What's the differentiator? It's probably skating. I think Lane's a really good skater, but I think this guy skating is Quinn Hughes,

kale McCarr-esque at the same point. A lot of good stuff. in Corey's 2026 draft ranking. Would highly recommend everybody go read that. We're going to take a quick break right there. Come back with a mailbag. All right, we're back, and we've got some mailbag questions. Reminder to you guys, that you can submit your questions all year long to our portal for questions that you can find periodically.

We'll tweet that out, but you can also find it if you're willing to scroll long enough on the athletic, you can find it anywhere. But we've got a mix today from that and a few that got tweeted to Corey. So Miserable for McKenna Scott says, why are Caleb Denoye and Jake O'Brien spread so fond? apart in the prospect tiers. He says he feels like O'Brien has more skill, creativity, intelligence, and more runway. Is it just a floor argument? Why are they far apart? I think it comes down to just the projectability of Caleb De Nway and the belief among scouts, which seems undeterred by his wrist surgery, that Caleb is going to be sort of that two C to Logan Cooley in Utah. It just feels like everybody likes Caleb Dainway.

There is certainly camps of people that really believe in O'Brien and his ability to make plays at pace and his creativity and the sort of offensive hockey IQ. But I think Caleb is just viewed as a more well-rounded, more complete, safer bet to reach his ceiling player. There are people who aren't even sure if O'Brien's a center at the NHL level. There are people who are unsure where he'll fit in with the Cracken, given that they already have Maddie Baneers and Berkeley Caton and Shane Wright.

I think there's a reason that Caleb went top five. in the draft and that amongst the top group that that Jake O'Brien sort of hung around until the end of that group where Seattle obviously took him. But I think ultimately it just comes down to the fact that people are, less that people are lower on O'Brien, more that scouts I talk to for this exercise just remain very bullish on Caleb Dainoye, like they think he's the real deal and he's going to be a big part of what Utah's building. I would add just don't sleep on Denoia's playmaking.

Like I've seen him make some really nice plays here. I don't think this is just a north-south two-way center. Like, I think he's going to put up real offense, too. So I think that's probably part of it as well. The question asker might be a little lower on Denoia's playmaking. Corey, seventh defenseman wants the case for and against Dmitri Bachelnikov as the next later-round Russian gem. I deal with these questions all the time. So I'm going to put it on your plate now.

That's very kind of you. I mean, the skating isn't very good for a guy that size. like and I know he's produced but what's he was he on he hasn't been like on BTS or something like that like yep they folded so now now he's on Cisco and to start the year he's got no points in four games it's four games but that was always kind of the question yeah what's he going to look like in the big pond yeah it's like James hardy gets like 80 points in the oh which all like that like it's somebody's got to produce on the bad teams and I I don't even I barely think he's a prospect

to be perfectly honest. So, I mean, feel free to get your, feel free to direct their anger towards me. But, I mean, he's got a lot to prove to show he's an NHL player.

Like, I mean, he's like a, at least he's like a worst version of Bergran, right? Like, it's maybe a more, a little bit more offensive, a little bit more goal score right nowhere near the skater.

So feel for. The question people will have when you say skating is he won the KHL's fastest skater competition. Yeah, Artie Callia, won the fastest backwards skating competition, too, when he did his testing, to watch the player. He's not, he's not, that's not what he is. Scott, do you want to give the case four?

I think you like Bachelnikov a little bit more than Corey. I just think the case four, if there is one, would be the scoring element. Like, he can shoot the puck in a way that Bregren couldn't. And he's, I think, a little bit taller, maybe like an inch. But Bachelnikov's also super, super skinny. So that's going to work again. Like, he just hasn't really added the weight. So I think the case for him being a better prospect than Corey's sort of underscoring would be that I think there's a little bit of a finishing element, like a little bit more closing the book on plays, putting the puck in the back of the net.

The release is there in a way that it never really was for Bergrin who did all of the dancing and all of the playmaking, but never sort of got to the inside and scored enough. But I'm not, I don't think I'm in that different a spot than Corey. And Red Wings fans have been on me for where I've had Bucchalnikov over the years. When I do my top 15 every year for the prospect pool rankings, he's always like eighth or ninth. They always yell at me about how he should be fourth or fifth or sixth or whatever. And I just don't, I don't think he's, to Corey's point, he's a long way from a sure thing. If he comes over here, he's going to have to prove he can score in the HL and then he's going to have to prove that he's more than a quadruple A guy. And I think there's probably the most likely outcome for Dimitri is that he's a quadruplea guy.

think. So it's not just me. So he's like Goosev, right? Like Goosev, uh, Shippachov, uh, any other inspiring names I can think of? I could see like a Dorofaev maybe outcome for him. Like Dorofaev's become a pretty good player for the Golden Knights. But Dorofi has like six two.

Yeah. Okay. Anyways. All right. We've ruined Red Wings fans days. Uh, Silas A says as a blues fan, what can teams like them do to draft better and get talent when they're not picking in the top 10 or top five? This applies to several teams around the league that I think are trying to get better.

They're probably not going to be in the top five, but they still clearly have a need for some splash prospects, Corey. I think what I've, and I haven't ran the numbers. They don't hold me to this. When you talk to people in hockey and when I talk to people who may work in other sports too, where you could trade drafts, I feel like the strategy to how to draft success belief always comes down to two things. Either you pick it high or you pick often. That one pick in a row in the 10 to 20 every year, it's really hard to build a contender that way.

So the best way to, there's going to be one star probably somewhere between 10 to 30 every year. And there's no real good way to predict who that's going to be. but if you got three shots at it every year, you improve your odds. All right, so just give more first round picks. Or trade down. That's more the logic kind of thing. Yeah.

I don't think the blues have, I don't know whether the question is coming from someone who's questioning the blues is draft history here. But I don't think the, like we just watched Jimmy Snuggiero a 20-something overall pick, jump into the league and make an immediate impact. I don't think they've done a poor job drafting here. I think we're going to see Carbono is going to become a player. Zach Bullduke just got traded for value. Like there's, they've picked players.

But that's kind of the argument there. It's like you look at the Snutterroot draft and he's probably one of those guys who has a chance, right? That was in that 10 to 30 range and the blues happened to draft that one. You know, along with, I think was, was that Nyes's draft year too? That was nice. Sorry, maybe mistaken in the years. But no, that was the Hudson draft. So like, you know, like that pro the program, you know, those three in Nazar obviously ended up.

But, you know, some people would have said it might have been in majority. I should have been in that mix or Isaac Howard or Seamus Casey. It just happened that those were the guys that ended up over time progressing. Scott, John H says for a fantasy hockey dynasty, who would the panel take? So I guess we'll all answer this given a choice between Schaefer or Mesa. But Scott, I know you are the deepest into the fantasy hockey world here. I would probably lean Michael Mesa. I just think the potential for Michael Misa to play with McClintselaubrini and Will Smith on a power play is more exciting long term.

Ultimately, power play points are the differentiator in the end in pretty much all fantasy hockey leagues. And that power play in San Jose, I think, is going to be more exciting than the power play at present that they have being built in Long Island. So I'd probably lean Mesa now. If Schaefer becomes like a Norris caliber defenseman and Mesa just becomes like the second or third option on that on that San Jose team, then maybe it's a different conversation. But I think the safer play, the surer play, if you will, is probably Michael Mesa from a fantasy value perspective. That power play with Will Smith and Sam Dickinson and Macklin Celebrini, I think he's going to have some real juice once all those guys are in the prime of their careers. That's 7% though. What, do you really get more points when it's on the power play in fantasy hockey? Why?

Well, in counting, counting leagues, yes, you typically get bonus points for a power play point versus an even strength point. And in category leagues, power play points are typically a category all on their own. So, no matter which format you're playing in, more often than not, you're benefiting from power play points. All right, write that down, producer, Chris, for when we have our draft for the team we co-run. Our league under Dom's format that we run. at the athletic, our league under Dom's format, does add, I think it's 0.5 points for a power playpoint. All right. Well, I'm going to blame that and not knowing that for why I've never made the playoffs. Emmett F., who do you see as having the higher ceiling between Malti Gustafson and William Hawkinson, Corey? I mean, I basically think they're the same player, more or less. I think they're both.

I mean, it's like, you know, I literally have like, I mean, pulling the curtain back. You know, I do the tool grades or whatever kind of thing. You line guys up and you see it whenever I don't have tool grades yet published for this draft, but you see it, you know, when I do them later in the year, they're basically the same size. They have the same tool grades. I leaned Hawkinson over Guston on my four just because he's done it versus men. So I thought even though he's older. I think he's a little bit bigger too, a little bit bigger.

I don't know. It's like Gusson's pretty huge. I think they're both about six four. They both skate well. They both play hard. Maybe Hawkinson a little harder, but similar. They both have good, not great offensive touch. I think they both kind of project to stop, you know,

second pair defensemen in the league, maybe, or like really, really good, like four or five types. Like that's kind of what I think it, you know, but we'll see how their years go, whether both of them show maybe a little bit more offense than I expected from them. Hawkinson starting up in SHL right now and Guson's J20. I think he had two points in his first game the other day.

All right. Well, that's going to do it for us. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Make sure you go and read all Scott and Corey's work, the prospect tiers, 2026 draft ranking, and much more, obviously, a busy time of year. We'll talk to you soon.