The Athletic Hockey Show - Corey’s 2022 NHL Draft ranking update, Max’s A1 piece on “The Frölunda way”, listener questions, and more

Episode Date: April 1, 2022

First, Max and Corey deep dive into Corey’s newly-updated 2022 NHL Draft ranking and discuss Juraj Slafkovsky’s jump into the top tier alongside presumptive No. 1 overall pick Shane Wright, the Conor Geekie vs. Matthew Savoie debate, who’s the next best USNTDP behind Logan Cooley, and much more.Then, the guys talk about Max’s excellent A1 piece in The Athletic “‘The Frölunda way’: Inside a Swedish club’s prospect pipeline to the Red Wings and NHL”, and discuss the process that went into writing the story, the pros and cons of the European player development model, Rasmus Dahlin as an absolute success story for the program going first overall in the 2018 NHL Draft, and more.Plus, to close things out, the guys open up the mailbag and take listener questions about what traits draw NHL teams to undrafted college free agents, Owen Power’s readiness to jump into the NHL next season, Owen Tippett’s ceiling, Tristan Luneau’s game, Frozen Four picks, the “abysmal” refereeing in today’s NHL, and whether Shane Wright’s game is more comparable to Patrice Bergeron or Manny Malhotra.And, right now, you can get a 6 month subscription to The Athletic for just $1 a month when you visit http://theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hey everybody, Max Boltman here alongside Corey Pranman back for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show's prospect series. Today we are going to talk about Corey's latest 2022 NHL draft rankings with a new top challenger to Shane Wright. We're going to talk about the Frulanda Hockey Club in Sweden. I wouldn't spend some time over there and wrote a story for our website this week. We're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about development and kind of what has made them, what's allowed them to have three top ten picks in the last four years. And then we got a really good mailbag section today with some good stuff that covers all kinds of topics in there. So it should be a really good show.

But I think we got to start with your 2022 draft rankings, Corey, because really that's what everybody cares about. Yeah, no, I mean, I thought it was a good time to put one out right after the CHL game was over, that we have the U18 World Championships and the CHL playoffs coming up. Things are probably going to change, particularly after the U18 world, but it's going to be our first real CHL playoffs in two years. And those really can impact a player's draft ranking. I remember going back to the last CHL playoffs, the one that Bowen Byron played in in the WHL playoffs

where he was just so dominant and firmly established himself as a top five pick through there. After a regular season where he was very good, but probably wasn't as good as you thought he was going to be. So I'll be really curious to see, you know, can Shane Wright just take over a playoff series? can Kingston beat Hamilton? There are other things that you can go through.

Can Winnipeg beat the Oil Kings? Those are interesting questions that I'll be curious to see how those things transpire over the next few months. But before that happens, this is kind of an update of where we are right now. Yeah, absolutely. And I think the big item at the very top, I guess, would be something that we had talked about on this podcast previously coming out of the Olympics. Urizovkovsky had an outstanding Olympic tournament.

and fittingly you moved him up into the same tier as Shane Wright. Not above him. You still have him slotted at number two, but he's now in that tier. And I guess my question to you would be, when you talk to NHL scouts in NHL circles, how big of a challenger now do Team C. Slivkovsky has for that number one pick? I don't think a majority of people would say he's going to push right out of the spot. I think almost everybody I talk to still think Shane Wright is the first pick.

but I do think there is a growing pool of thought that the gap has closed and if the gap is that close I think they're going to take the center and they look to his history of production and even though he hasn't produced at an elite level this year I think teams that I've talked to still see what he's done over the last three years and see an elite prospect and the fact that's Lofkovsky at least other than international play like the Hulinka, the world juniors, and the Olympics didn't really have an amazing year with his clubs is a variable that keeps them from being able to firmly push right out of the one spot. That being said, Slavkovsky has been on a good run of late.

After he came back from the Olympics, there was a stretch there where he scored in four straight league of games. In the playoffs the other day, he had a two-point game with a goal. It's not a first overall, second overall type of statistical performance for a, a first year draft eligible in Liga, but he's still coming on lately to kind of boy off the great Olympics he had. And I think with him, it's less statistics and more tools. I think you look at a 6-4 guy who could skate, he has skill, he can make plays.

He can shoot the puck. You know, I see why so many people around the league are excited about him. I'm really excited about him. I think this is a guy who has star potential. You know, he reminds, you covered, the con for him I always think of as a player you covered there for a few years. Like he reminds me of Anthony Mantha, maybe a little bit more competitive Anthony Mantha. That's always kind of been the issue with Mantha and maybe less so with this guy. And so I see that and I see a guy who can be a first line, first power play, 25, 30 goal scoring winger in the National Hockey League.

Well, I think what you said about the skills and the, sorry, the, the. production versus the tools is is the defining thing with him. But that's where when he came out of the Olympics, I think we even said it on this show, if he comes out of the Olympics and keeps this up, you probably feel a little better about that whole thing because you just wanted some production to back up the tools, to kind of validate what your eyes told you this guy's capable of doing. And to his credit, really since the Olympics, he has had the production that suits a guy who's going to go in this range. It doesn't erase what happened in the first half of the year. but you see he comes back with some confidence and now the points do start coming at the level

that I would say more closely matches kind of this ranking on the tools. Yeah. Among teams I talk to, he's firmly a top five guy. And I hear a ranges on that from firmly top. You know, he's two, he's three. Some have him a little bit lower than that. And I've had a minority of scouts say they would take him over right, a small minority, but a minority. So he's in that debate. And he's really been the only guy in this draft who's had the season that can challenge Wright.

Because Wright didn't have the amazing season, but he is a great player with an amazing track record. Nobody else like Logan Cooley's a great player. Simon Nemitz, your Eurechik, the Winnipeg kids, they're great players. But they didn't have the elite season that would elevate them to that level. Whereas Slavkovsky, at least in isolated moments, to go with the elite toolkit, has done enough to at least put himself into the conversation. You talked about kind of how the center wing dynamic could play in there at the top. I think that obviously, it's not limited to the first and second overall spots in any draft.

And I think a couple of teammates, and we've talked about him plenty on this show as well, Connor, Geeky and Matt Savoy, you've got them 7-8 on your rankings, and you give the slight edge in your ranking at number 7 to Geeky. my impression reading the blurbs talking to you as much as I have is that that would be in at least meaningful part because of the certainty that Connor Geeky brings at the center position as opposed to Savoy where it's a real question at this point is he a center or wing right and just to go off one last thing on the last one you know it's awfully not center versus wing isn't the only variable otherwise Taylor Hall wouldn't would have gone behind Tyler Sagan there's if the talent is close it takes

a center and I think that's what's going to happen with those two if the draft happens happen today. In terms of the Winnipeg kids, I mean, right now, based on the last few Winnipeg Ice Games I've watched, Geiki and Savoy play on the same line, and Geeky's a center on that line. It doesn't mean that because Savoy is not currently playing center in the WHL, he cannot be an NHL center. He was a center for a very long stretch of time this season in the WHL before they acquired Jack Finley. He was a center of the CHL-Tal Top Prospects game. He's been centers for very long stretches of his young hockey career. But that is the debate. There aren't a lot of five-nine centers in the NHL. There aren't a lot of five-nine centers who don't play a certain way,

where either their defensive plays elite or their skating's elite like a Jack Hughes or something along those lines. And I think both of those components with him are very good. I think he's a very good skater. I think he's very competitive. But it's just against the odds that he would be a center whereas the 6-3 guy with physicality whose plate center reliably for a long period of time and has offense, I think you're more confident

that geeky is going to be at NHL Center or top two-line NHL Center. And for me, on pure talent, the gap is closing. The first half of the year, Savoy got off to that extremely hot start, and I thought, okay, you know, he's kind of,

he's separating himself a little bit, at least at the junior level here, As the season has kind of gone on, I think that gap has closed. The scoring gap is still significant. I think Savoy has like 10, 15, maybe even closer to 20 points over Geeky, which is a lot. But watching them, I don't think, at least, especially at even strength, I don't think you see that much, especially now that they're on the same power play unit. I think you're starting to see that they're closer in pure talent and given the pro-projection stuff.

I would lean towards geeky. And I know it's been a really interesting debate among NHL people. I mean, it's probably been the most fun. One of the most fun questions I had to ask scouts and see where this debate goes when asking, what they do for a geeky or Savoy? Because the matter where their team is picking in the draft, everybody has an opinion on this. Well, it is interesting because ultimately, I kind of, just to be candid, I feel like Savoy pops a little more. And I think there's always a sizzle factor to that.

And even I think if you go into your tool grades on that, like this is a guy who you've got with above NHL average tools in four of the five categories. And so I think that's a really exciting package. I also agree. I do think size matters. And I think sometimes people want to say, well, if this guy was 6-0 or 511, you wouldn't have him ranked here. But he's not.

He's 6-3. And being 6-3 gives you certain advantages in the NHL. These are both facts. But what I want to know is, okay, we talk about the lack of kind of small centers here. Let's say it's like a Vincent Trochec would be one of the examples. I think you've given in the past on this versus like a Kevin Fiala who would be a smaller wing, but who has some dynamic elements to their game. Even if you know that it's a wing, let's say the projection is Kevin Fiala-ish.

Like how far behind a geeky projection should that be? Well, yeah. I mean, it's a fair point. And I'm trying to recall it off top of my head because they were both recently traded. I'm trying to remember the Fiala return versus the Trow Check return off the top of my head. But I think you prefer the center no matter what. But I'm saying even if you know for a fact that he's a winger, the tools here are really impressed. This is still a really good NHL forward prospect.

Yeah, and the big reason why the Wilde have been so successful this year is because he's going to feel him and some other players. But he's a part of that. And I think I'm not trying to say that wingers have no vans. I have a winger a second overall. I have a winger. They're easier to find, though. They are easier to find. You don't have to pay usually as much in the trade market for them.

Or in free agency, typically you'll pay a little bit more because it's usually statistics driven. But for me, when it's close, you take the center and I think this gap is closing. I can see the argument the other way. I've talked to people around the league who prefer Savoy. I've talked to people around the league who prefer Gavoy. geeky. It's really tight, I think, and I would be, we really just to see how their playoffs go, because I think that's kind of kind of be the thing that might end up being the deciding factor

there is how their WHL playoffs go. One more question on these two. Who do you think has more runway left in front of them between Geeky and Savoy? And what do you mean by that? Well, I mean, this is kind of a heuristic here, but like you look at Savoy, who at times can have kind of a full beard here. And I think you look at geeky who's a little more baby-faced. And I think it's kind of an old school way of looking at things. But there's a maturation process that some guys hit that prime a little earlier. And other guys, they have more runway in front of them.

I think, no, it's a good point. And it's one I've heard actually quite often, particularly for Savoy. Because when he was playing in the USHL last season in Dubuque, people were noticing he has a full mustache already. Right. 16 years old. I don't know how much to put value into that. I see the argument to maybe he hit puberty earlier or something along those lines.

So I guess it would be geeky in that regard. I don't even mean it as like who has less facial hair in that way. But I just mean like in terms of projection. I don't usually incorporate that kind of stuff into that usually. Fair enough. But it's something I've heard. It's something I have definitely heard in NHL circles, particularly when it comes to Savoy. because I think you more often would hear that I think as it pertains to like a guy who had like an

October birthday or whatever. I don't think birth year is the only thing that determines like how far into players developmental track they are, right? It's not just that. And you hear it with tropes with Russians too. Like he looks like he's 22 years old as long old. Sure, right. Yeah. That kind of thing.

So I don't know. I just, I think these are all things to consider. I think this is going to be probably one of the most fascinating. You know, these are two guys who have been teammates and it's kind of one of the things that they were teammates. and in the WHL draft, they went one, two in the same draft. And now recently linemates. So it's an inevitable storyline, and I think it's going to continue to be a good one. Speaking of teammates, though, so we know Logan Coley kind of has, you've got number three in

your rankings all year, wire to wire, he's really been the guy at the NTDP. But the question I think right now is, who's next? Because I think there's a lot of buzz around Frank Naser, but there's also lately been a lot of buzz around Cutter-Gotier. And these are two very different players. I'm curious, who do you think is the next best player at the NTDP? We're talking about particularly the 2022 draft. Correct.

Because if we start talking about the entire team, Charlie Stramel is a guy, I expect what is going to go very high in the 2020 draft. And you can argue he's right at the same level as Logan Cooley as a prospect. But in terms of the 2022 draft, you're right, that there's been, I would say, a lack of a consensus opinion in scouting, encircleed on who's the next guy after Cooley. Some argue it is Frank Nazer, who since they've been fully healthy, the NTP that is, he's been the second line center on that team, undersized guy by an excellent skater,

highly competitive, brings offense, maybe doesn't drive the play or as quite as dynamic, a small player like Cooley is, but he's a very good prospect committed to Michigan. then you have cutter Gautier who's really just kind of been on this steep upward trajectory since the start of the season where when I started the season I talked to scouts who thought Nazar could be like a late first

I didn't talk to rarely any sketch at the start of the season who thought Gauth he was going to be first round paper now the discussion is that he can he maybe crack the top 12 top 10 so he's kind of he's really been elevating he's on the first line first power play now on that team 6 3 guy who could skate

he has one of the best shots in the draft. He has good skill. He's played center this season, but when Strainville was injured, I think there's a legitimate question on whether he's actually going to be an NHL center or not, whether he had that level of playmaking,

an all-around play to be an HL center, even though he has the size and the skating. So I think that's one of the variables that will kind of tug between him and Nazar is if you believe Nazar is a center, again, 5-10 guy, I'm not a guarantee, but if you believe Nazar as a center,

the center, or I believe go to the center, I think those are going to be two things that are going to drive that conversation. And for the most part, those are the two guys I hear the most about it as the favorite to be the second guy picked from the program. There are minority opinions of people who prefer one of the wingers, like Rutt or McRorty, who's been playing very well lately, like Jimmy Snuggard, who doesn't have the big numbers, but one of the young, you know, he's like a July birthday, so he's young. has progressed very well, kind of betting on a trajectory of their projection with his size, his shot skill.

And there are still some people who like Isaac Howard a lot, too, although I think that's dwindled over the course of the season. The, you know, that's the second best part of the NDP, but the other conversation, I guess, would be, we've kind of had the debate on the top defenseman in some degree, Nemitz versus you're a check, but kind of an merger into the next tier of defensemen, at least by your rankings, this most recent one. I don't believe Kevin Korninski out of Seattle was in the most recent one prior to this. I think it was January, but he is in there at number 17. I think he's in the same tier as Pickering and Minchikov. What did he do to get himself into that tier? And could he be

the third defenseman in this draft? Yeah, when I saw him in the first half of the season, I saw a talented player. I saw a good, you know, decent sized, good skating defenseman. He looked like he had some offense. So I thought, okay, this is an interesting player, but he really didn't defend that well. I thought he had struggles really in his own end to win battles and had to be used in a very specific way by his coach. But as a season has gone on, his play is elevated and often he's playing 25, 28, 30 minutes a night for Seattle, who look like not. not one of the top teams, but a good team in the WHL this season. He plays huge minutes.

Still doesn't kill penalties because of the defensive issues, but he brings really good even strength, very good on the power plate. The offense is even coming on stronger now as the season has gone on. He's right around a point of game for a defenseman who is just measured in recently at the top prospect game at 6'2, can skate, has offense. He looks like a really intriguing player. you like your defenseman be able to defend well

but he's also a very young defenseman he's another one I think he's like a June July birthday so you presume by throughout his junior career those are things he can add to his game and to go with his toolkit I have when I put out my last ranking

in January he was the one I heard from around the league you're too low on this guy and I was hesitant for a while but I kept going back and watching again and again and saw him, you know, just recently his top props again is just okay. But, you know, I see the argument. I see the toolkit, the top four defenseman potential, and now I kind of have him in that group with those other guys who have somewhat similar

of skill sets as well. What's the name on this list that you've heard the most from, whether it's too high or too low so far? You've had a good day and a half here to let the text roll in. I haven't heard that that much. The one I guess I've heard the most was Liam Bischel, the fenceman from Lexon, Switzerland. There are definitely some people out there who really, really like this kid. I'm getting there. If you asked me to go, like this was a 27 player list. If you asked me for 28, he would have been it.

Yep. So he would have been the first guy in the next tier. I want to kind of see, you know, he just got hurt. We'll see whether he gets to play again this season. If he does, whether it's U-18s, the World Championships, I kind of want to see how we would do at those levels, and then I'll see whether I would elevate him into that top tier. The last guy on the list I want to talk about is Nathan Gosey.

And I think technically he comes in a little later on the list than he did in the previous ranking. But ultimately, I don't think it's major movement for him. And he was a guy who I thought stood out to me at the top prospects game. I know we talked about him on the last episode. What's kind of the team's view of Nathan Gosey? Because he's not the fleetest of foot player, but he does bring, you know, really good size for a centerman. It looks like he's going to be a true two-way shutdown player with high competitiveness that I, you know, sometimes that can compensate for a little bit of a skating deficiency.

Right. I was just talking about somebody before the podcast about having that, you know, their argument was you're probably drafting the bottom six forward, which you don't really love telling your fans and your ownership. when you have a first round pick. But if he could be a third-line center, which I personally think he could be, that's a very valuable piece. And I think he can be a third-line center. I think he can be because that's kind of been the question here with him this season,

is his offense has been not what you hoped after he was a point-of-game guy the previous year in the queue. He still has some offense. I think he's got like 25 goals this year, nothing to sneeze at. But he doesn't really make a ton of plays. He has good hands, can make plays around the net, but he's not a driver of a line offensively.

But he's very competitive, big physical center who can kill penalties, provide secondary offense. I like him. I thought his top prospect game was very good, too, as we discussed the other day. And I see a place for him in the first round, but because the offense hasn't come, I've had to lower the projection there a little bit.

Yeah. It's interesting because during the top prospects game, I agree. It's like the feet are a concern, but I just haven't felt like he looks too slow, and I think that's partly because of the competitiveness. For what is worth, there are some scouts I've talked to who liked the feet. When I asked Gosey, what he thought is biggest strengths where he said? He's skating, so, you know, everyone's opinions will can vary on these things. I personally have never seen that before, but some people, some scouts do think he's a strong skater.

But, yeah, I like this player. I think he's going to play in the NHL. I think he's going to play in the NHL for a significant amount of time. Not everybody agrees with that, but I believe that. One last thing on Bishel, I just wanted to say before I wrapped up here is I kind of see the tensions there. I think there's going to be a couple defensemen in this year's draft we're going to have these debates about it. Because I think there's like three guys who kind of fit this mold. It's Bishel, Maverick Lamarroo in Drummond, and Noah Warren and Gattano who are these big, mobile, physical defensemen.

And the question on all three of them is do they have enough offense? I think people lately have been convinced by Bishel, but that's the thing I'm still trying to sort out here in the coming months. Max, so you had a big day at the athletic the other day when you had the A1, which for people who don't care about newspaper type terms, A1 refers to the lead story on the website. But from when you visited Sweden and got to visit the Frolanda organization in Gothenburg, Sweden. And I know you were over there for various reasons for your Red Wings coverage. But what was it about Frulanda that kind of drew you to them and made you decide to do a story about them, not really from the Red Wings perspective? Yeah, it's a good question.

I mean, the thing that drew me overall to Sweden was that the Red Wings had picked six guys from this one. program in the last three years. And you don't, you know, you see teams that sometimes can have ties, obviously, the Ottawa senators have happened to draft a lot of kids who are committed to North Dakota over the last few years. But I think when you, when you start to see a program really pull from the same place over and over, it just gets your attention. And really, I had thought, especially, right, with high picks. And so I thought about it as early as the 2020 draft when they took both Raymond and Niederbach after having taken Elmer Soderblum and Gustav Bergland the year before. And then really when they came back the next year, it was really three straight

drafts where they've taken multiple guys from this one team. That's what spurred it. So obviously the immediate benefit is I get to see all these guys and write stories about them. But I was very curious, like, what is going on here that is so interesting? And I think there's some organizational ties that I think are relevant to this, right? Like Hawken Anderson, who's probably the most famous scout that the Rebbing's have, a European scout who brought in a lot of their really good players in their prime years was at one point on the board of this program and at a pretty important time. But he hasn't been for the last six years and certainly not for the period where the Red Wings have drafted so heavily from there. I'm sure there's still connections

there that help with this stuff. And obviously he's familiar. But ultimately, what I found was they really, they just do a pretty good job of churning out top players. And they've had three prospects in the last four years drafted in the top 10. And I can't think of Corey, maybe you can help me. I can't think of any other program other than the NTDP that would have had a stretch like that in recent memory. And so inherently to me, that just stood out as really interesting. And I wanted to see what are they doing, if anything, to cause that to create that. Right. I'm sure the London Knights have been there in some stretches. The Halifax Moose hits might be the one that comes to mind. Yeah, that's right. Zadena, heeshire, McKinnon. Yeah,

that's a good one. Drewann. Drewann. Yeah. Tim Omeyer, Nikolai Eliers. All right. That's a pretty good one. to people who didn't know by the name you mentioned before, Hawkinson Anderson, he's one of the most famous NHL scouts of the last 20 years, was a big part of when the Red Wings got all those mid-round Europeans that became stars. And as you mentioned in the piece, he was a significant part of for Lundah there for a period of time. Yeah, exactly. And so I think that's all really relevant stuff. But what I found that kind of I think helped explain this was several things really.

I think number one, and this might just be my personality, But I'm always drawn to who are the people at a place like this that make it tick? And there's a lot of interesting ones. I didn't get to meet the chairman, Matt Growers, but he came in at an interesting time in this organization's history. They were probably overspending for where they were. And so they're a historic program. They've had a long history of churning out really good players. But they financially, I think, at kind of the turn of the 2010s, got into a spot where they needed to kind of rein things in.

And at that time, they brought in this guy, Matt Growers, who had been running a handball club in Sweden. They were totally different sport. And they brought them in and wanted them to kind of run it similarly. And the focus really was this needs to be a develop our own future players situation. And so the handball team, I know, had a rule that they, 50% of their pro roster, they wanted to have originated from their own development academy. And Furlunda has that same ethos. And so that, I think, is a really big one. I would have liked to have met him while I was down there.

We've emailed quite a bit since then. But the general manager of Frederick Schostrom, who's a former NHL first round pick, he went back over there. And I think, ironically, was one of the players who, by his own acknowledgement, thinks he was probably making too much in that era and had to kind of step away. They ultimately had to move on from him. And he moved into a front office role. And I think culture-wise, that's a really interesting thing to have a former

NHL player who really knows what it takes, who's also, you know, invested enough in the club that he wants to be part of it even after that kind of situation. But I think that, you know, they've got really good people working. The development manager, Miklstrom, I spent quite a lot of time with while I was there, and I found him to be a really interesting guy with really high buy-in to what they're doing. But I think the guy that is probably most associated, the person most associated with this era of Freeland is the coach, Roger Ronberg. And Corey, I know when we had our, if you could think all the way back to the pandemic, the heart of the pandemic, the start of it, where there were no real sports going on. We did our mega mock draft for the NHL, and we all

had to draft like a player, an owner, a GM, a coach, all that. You drafted Roger Ronberg during that draft. And so before I talk about it, I did want to hear, like, what was your process for when you wouldn't dislike that? Was that like you just know from covering prospects this long as was someone you're interested in? Did you poll people about this? Right. No, I just knew from the World Juniors having watched, you know, watched, you watched him coach for a while world juniors and then be with the shl forever you know help being a leading team and that was that everything draft was kind of silly exercise where we had to like draft like a we had to have like a player and a city and an owner i just put him at the end there because

coaches are irreplace are typically you know very often replaced yeah they're more fluid that i i let all the n hl guys go first and and i think he i think he's proven he could be a legitimate candidate to be an NHL coach. I like some of the things he's done. That's why I picked him there. I do think in general, the NHL should try to be more proactive in hiring Europeans for management roles

and for coaching roles. I think you're slowly starting to see this. Right now there are two head scouts in the NHL who are European. That number was zero as of a couple of years ago. The Islanders and Columbus. Columbus being those teams. And actually, Seattle has a European head scout, too, although he is based in North America. So three, my mistake.

But that is something that I think the league should be trying to be more proactive to doing. Well, I thought it was interesting when I ran your article was comparing it to the SCA article I did. A few months ago, that article was not really about SCA. Your article was about Frulunda. the article was about Modifay and Michkov, the top prospect for the 2023 draft, and just how the SCA thing kind of influences his story. But when I was researching SCA, I kind of learned about how they also used to be, you know, this team that just threw a lot of money around, brought in a lot of free agents,

and they too decided we're going to start, you know, developing our own players, really developing investing in a farm system. We want to be a homegrown team. and we want to really invest in our facilities. And I saw some analogy to that in your story in terms of, you know, how these elite European teams, not just in the KHL and the SHL, but typically whenever I hear about these elite European teams. And you also can argue this applies to college hockey to an extent too.

Yeah. The really elite programs really invest in things around the hockey team. Usually when it comes to, you know, their training, their facilities. how they have to develop them as athletes and as people. They put a lot of money into the things you don't see necessarily on the ice. Yeah, I mean, the gym there is really nice. They have this little mini skill ring. The complex is called Frulandaborg.

I think it translates to Campus Frulinda. And they've got this mini rink behind the practice sheet where if you wanted to, if you're like a high school player and you come to the rink, I think you usually get there about an hour before practice. If you wanted to jump on like the little rink and practice skill, work or work on your shot or work on certain things, you can do that. And I think these are little things that you think about what are the hardest thing, practically, the hardest things to do with developing a young hockey player. Obviously, the talent part is a big part of it and there's all these

intangible stuff. But there is a resource component to this. And one of the biggest resources, I think, is probably ice time, because it is kind of a scarce resource. And to have this little mini rink, I think is a really interesting example of something that you'd be afforded at a program like this that I think would, I could imagine being really helpful to working on a specific little skill. So I think you're exactly right about that. I'd also add, you know, for Lenda, really the, I would say the elite program there, it starts with the U-16 team. But what they do that I think is really interesting is the regional development aspect of this. because I think one question you could reasonably raise about this place is, okay, yeah, they've had three top 10 picks in the last four years, and all of them are from their surrounding area.

Including the first overall pick. Correct. Rasmus Dahlin is from the surrounding area. Lucas Raymond played at Freelandis and C. was like a kid. Like at some point, you could probably make a decent argument of like, well, yeah, I mean, you had the fortunate pattern of these players being born there and raised there. But what's interesting to me is how much I think Friland invests in the regional development. there, including in their kind of way of doing things, that they want to share this identity that

they have, which it's in the story. It's kind of like always pressure, always attack, always puck control. These are kind of their kind of first principles of their hockey. And they share it. There's this like 70 page document online that you can find for like how they want youth players ultimately kind of to come up and be raised. And so I think that's a relevant counter to the idea that like, you know, yes, I do think the geography helps. Sweden's second largest city. That's going to help for sure. But I think they are an active participant in kind of cultivating the landscape here for how these players are going to come up even before they set foot in Fruly. Edvinson didn't get there until he was 15. In the surrounding organizations, there is a tie.

I think Frulynda meets with some of the other youth coaches from other programs monthly. And I think that's really relevant to all of this. So that I thought was really interesting. I'm curious, Corey, because one of the things that I was interested in while I was over there is there are players from there. Like, they've had 27 guys drafted to the NHL in last seven years. And obviously, not all of them are a Lucas Raymond or Simon Edvinson or a Rasmus Dahlin. When you look at a guy like a Carl Henriksen, who was a second round pick of the other New York Rangers, it's not like he's reached, you know, kind of this top end status.

And I think you could fairly ask the question of like, well, with a guy like that, how do you explain that away when you talk about, not explain it away, but explain, you know, okay, he hasn't really broken through. to that next level. If Teodorneederbach is a Red Wings prospect, who's a year or two younger than Henrickson, similar thing. When I was there, he had three goals and three games, but otherwise, he hasn't had like a dominant year or anything. I think that's an interesting question for all of this, too, is that, you know, the

special players have come through at the top of the draft and they've had a lot of guys drafted. Sure. Is the next step, like, how do you kind of rate the guys and account for the guys who are drafted and then it does take a little longer? That's something I grappled within the story. Yeah, I'd probably argue both just my opinion, obviously, I think both of those guys were drafted too high. But that's a whole other issue.

Sure. But yeah, I mean, no program is going to have a perfect track record, particularly when the priority, they can say all these kinds of things about development and I wanted to bring in a player. But the priority of those programs are to win, win SHS championships. And they will do whatever they have to do to win those games, particularly, obviously, when the leverage starts to increase. So I find these programs, they prioritize development, but they do it at their convenience, essentially. They want to make sure those players are coming because you want organizational depth for when injuries happen. Or when you look around the SHL landscape, the SHL landscape has changed a lot over the last few years with programs emerging that were in the Al Spenskin a couple years ago and all of a sudden are pushing to become

legitimate playoff threats and geography isn't always as we mentioned the only thing that matters. You have the main Stockholm team for forever, your garden, who as we speak are down to nothing in the relegation series and are probably going to get relegated unless they make some sort of big comeback

here. And that was the team with William Eklund and Alexander Holtz and many other high picks over a long period of time. So there's no guarantee from geography. So their priority is to win. So I'm not going to fault them if a couple of guys don't work out, particularly when you have guys who are not thoroughbreds. You know, if a guy like

Simon Evans, it doesn't work out, then you start asking some. Sure. Some hard questions. But when the 5-10 guy doesn't skate that well, doesn't work out, that's just, that's just life sometimes, I think. One thing I thought that was interesting is you mentioned, what was the name of the complex? Frulindaborg. Right. So when I did the SCA piece, they actually called their whole like facility, hockey city. Yeah. You know,

so I thought it was interesting that there's some similarities there that they kind of like have like these grandiose names for their complexes and their approach where Scott had like the multiple rings and the gyms and all the other crap they had. One thing I just like was I kind of fall in love, I guess, with this romanticized idea of European development, right? Because you do get to have these kids in, in a way that, you know, an NHL team doesn't get to raise a kid from 16, right?

Like in some ways, there's junior programs, do, but then they don't get to have them as pros. And I love this idea of how you can, you know, whether it's with the academy model or whatever else, I love the idea of how you can raise these people and have them for so long. That just fascinates me. And I think that that's certainly not unique to for Lundda. It's not unique to Scott. This is like, this is the way it is over there. And I kind of love the continuity.

Soccer is obviously, you know, if you're big into, you know, into soccer, you know, that's a big thing in terms of how they develop players. In America, we don't have that. I think the closest thing we would have is college football, where you have this long recruiting process and that they come in. And for the top tier programs, the facilities are incredibly luxurious. And they invest, invest, invest, invest into those programs,

you know, for reasons that you can kind of go down a rabbit hole on, but they do. Yeah. But we don't, you know, that starts, you can recruit earlier. We don't really start developing these players until they're 18 years old, usually. Whereas in Europe, like I said, you can typically top prospects unless they're born in, for example, in Sweden, in Gothenburg or in Stockholm, they're going to bounce around programs

a little bit. But there are times, like in a case like a Lucas Raymond where from 14, 15 years old, you are a member of this organization. From five. He was born in Gothen, he was forlund his whole life. Yeah. Sure. Yeah.

So it's much different than what we deal with in North America. It is. And one thing I like about it is the way, this is something that they showed me. So they had this kind of, I think it was on a computer something. There was like a step chart. It was John Klingberg. And they kind of show like his draft year and what it was like for him. And ultimately it's kind of like when he was playing with his age group, he was dominant.

And when he would play up an age group, he was basically, I think the word that they used was like he was trying to survive. And you can do both there. Like when you're at Alabama football, if you're not quite ready, you're just not playing. But in Europe and this program, I think they're very conscious about it. They want you to do both. They want you to experience, this is what the next level is. This is how hard it is. And go down to your own peers.

Yes, I'm really good. Like, I'm still really good at my age group, but this is what it's going to take to get to the next level. I found that push and pull really interesting and I think really useful. And it's something that there's not really an analog to in North America. I mean, the closest thing I could think of would be like an NTP U17 going up to the U-18s for some games. But even then, they're playing similar schedules. I guess American lead to the NHL kind of thing. Yeah, but that's at like the top.

Right, right, right. No, for sure. And there's some cons to that model, too, where in some examples, you have just like the player playing Sweden J20 or the Russian playing in the MHL or the Finn playing in their gym. senior league. And then they go up and they're really good and they go up to the big club and they play like 10 games and they score one or two points and then they come back. They get a taste. They go to next year and they're good. Right. But a lot of times it doesn't work that way. Sometimes you have these kids who bounce between three, four, five levels in a given season. There'll be the Sweden who plays the J20. Then it goes to the J-18s.

They load them to the El-Sfenskin. Well, there's the J-18 elite and the J-18 Al-Svenskin. And then there's the Svenskin League and then the SHL. Then they play international games. And it's, and before the end of the season happens, they've had seven head coaches. And they've all been in one program. I was just like researching a Slovakian player for, for draft reasons today. And he has played for between, because he was with one Slovakian team, he got traded

to another Slovakian team. Between the Slovakian team he was with initially, the second one, their pros, their juniors, and international games. He's played for nine teams this season. one season that that's a lot. It's wild. I mean, it, yeah, I mean, that, that, that is too extreme.

But I just found it really appealing the idea of like, you're in one, you can be in one place in Europe and you can play at multiple levels for whatever suits your needs at a given stretch in a season, not just at the start, you got to know. It's like, if you're struggling, yeah, go down and play against your peers. If you're really crushing your peers, hey, go up and get humbled a little bit. Like, all these things that I think are really good for you, I found myself really drawn to that. And I think it's interesting because it's certainly not the only program in Sweden that is really good at this stuff.

And there's a lot of really good programs there. You know, Ruggla is one that Scott Wheeler's written about the Abbott brothers who run it there. They've turned that from a program that was facing relegation the year before they arrived into probably the best team in the SHL right now. They're certainly in first place of the standings at the end of the season. They won the European Champions League. There's other programs, Haleftio, Lulio. Vak was one like third. of the last seven championships there.

There's a lot of really good teams. And I think we're in a really interesting era of hockey in that country that there's some really good programs. And I think their development model, I just find it really appealing, the Swedish model. And like I said, you know, we have the Gergarten, historically one of the big programs, but been relegated. HV.71, historically, arguably, the biggest program is Swedish Hockey League, currently in the El Spanskin.

And what does that do to the available talent to these other places, right? because it's, I mean, you could play in the Al Spenskin, especially as a young player and it's okay. Well, you saw what happened. Colorado after drafts Oscar Olson in the first round, he's in Ontario right now. Correct, right. So it's fascinating to me. So it was a really cool experience. I was really glad I did it.

All right, Corey, let's wrap it up today with a mailbag and some good ones today. Starting with one from Michael A. That's interesting. What specific traits or attributes make NHL teams more willing to bet on a college free agent, as opposed to when they were first draft eligible. In other words, they're a lot older by this point. So what are the traits here that become most important for a college-free agent as opposed to the first-year eligibles?

So typically at the beginning of the draft, the first, never mind the first round, even like the first three rounds. There's usually some sort of differentiated about a player that gets them drafted in that range, typically it's athletic traits. They're 6-1 or 6-2 and skate very well and have some offense. Or if they aren't those things, their offense is just so incredible, it pops off the charts.

You have elite skill, elite hockey sense, something that gets you drafted in those first couple of rounds. Once you get past there, though, and I think some readers will recognize that they read my writing typically when it comes to those late round picks that have a chance guys that I would put into a draft ranking of their farm system. These players look really similar to each other. They're all, they all don't skate very well, or they're undersized. They have some offense. They don't have a lot. and they start to really look really similar to each other. And where teams end up doing typically in those fifth, sixth, seventh rounds is they kind of identify this pool of, let's say, a hundred players or 150 players.

And they got to pick out the five or ten of them. They think will pop as time goes on. Because usually those late round picks are the guys who are going to college or playing in Europe that you're going to control for a long time. You're going to be to see how they develop. Typically. There obviously are junior players to get drafted in the late rounds too. But what you usually see with these college free agents is those guys from that pool of 100 and 150 guys I mentioned. You see as time has gone on which one of those guys who are 6'0 or 6'1 don't skate very well kind of thing, but you thought had a good hockey sense

and competitive and maybe they had a chance, which one of those popped three, four years later and seemed to be on a better trajectory than those other 100 guys that I mentioned. mentioned before. So it just, the benefit of time gives you at least just more information to tell you who's going to separate. They're still usually not elite athletes. Like every now and again, you get the Danny DeKaiser who's big and mobile. You're like, how the heck this was this guy not drafted? And people go after those guys. But usually the college free agents, the European free agents, are not premium athletes or if they are, they typically have very little offense. And you just got the benefit of time to seeing who separated from the pack.

All right. From that to a guy who has every tool and was identified immediately, now that Owen Power is about to likely wrap up his NCAA career, do you feel he's ready to make an impact in the pros? And do you think the leap he made offensively this year is going to translate to the NHL? He's pro-ready. He probably could have played in the NHL this season. I do think it did benefit him to go back to college, watching him in college hockey this

season. I think Saver's fans might have been frustrated watching him in the NHL this season I think he still would have been good but I think you would have there would have been some learning

bumps there as an 18 year old 2019 in the NHL particularly on a team that was I think they weren't as bad people thought they were going to be this season but they weren't a top team obviously so but I do think he'll help them

next year I think he could be a top board of fencing for them next season I think he's an excellent, excellent player, big, mobile, has offense, he's going to be a really good two-way defenseman in the National Hockey League. I'm not sure how much of you have to see this year, your max, but I think it's fair to say he was great, but for the first overall pick, I thought he would have this monster year, and I don't think he hit that level. He was still really, really good. Obviously, that's brief world juniors. He was good. those players man at the Olympics holds his own all that stuff he's going to be a great player just I didn't think I didn't think he had the big big year well and his game despite being six six his game isn't maybe in the same way

as like a Luke Hugheswood or Kent Johnson which doesn't jump off the ICU quite in the same way but I think he's he's a really good player on the topic of this offense question that here's my question for you you're let's say you're the Buffalo Sabres coach are you playing power on the second power play behind Dull or would you consider playing him on the first power play on the flank and having them both out there? Because I think he does have the vision to make the kind of plays you want from a flank player, does have the shot to play like a flank player. What would you do?

Well, he's definitely not kicking Dalyan off the first unit. And I'm guessing those are issues that are going to have tensions with. I'm guessing there will be times where he does do that sometimes. He's going to be on second power play because he doesn't have, I think you're going, I think you're hoping as time develops, you know, you're going through the organization. Does he have more offense than Krebs? No, is he had more offense than Jack Quinn? No, Dahlene, no.

So you bump into your cousin's offer, you bumping, you start, never mind the veterans they have on the team, like Alex Tuck and whatnot. So I'm guessing at the end of the day, he will be second power play. But I still, I do really like this player. I think your point is fair. He can be a little bland, but you saw in the game

last weekend when that game versus Queen of Piac tightened up, his minutes went up, starts killing lots of plays, getting the pucks up the ice. I think he made that one play on the empty netter to kind of seal it. You know, he's a great, great player. Should be, should help that team a lot next season.

I think he's a one. Like, this is not to disparage him. It's just, it's just the style of the game. You know what I mean? Right, right. He's not a take the game over kind of player. Yeah, but you're going to be really glad he's on your team. Yes, I agree.

He's a potential, he's a production number, he's a production number one defense. Yeah. All right. Brian Holland, does Owen Tippett develop into a solid second liner for you? I think this is a good question because this is a fair range of like a, not a perfect outcome, but like a solid 80th percentile outcome for Owen Tippett? Yeah, and I think he will. I mean, from where I, he hasn't really scored much in the couple games played at Flyers,

but when I've watched him, I think he's looked good. Like, I think he looks like he's going to be that for them. You know, obviously, their depth charts, a lot different than Florida's depth chart. He will have much more opportunity there. And I think he will. I don't think he's going to hit that echelon of why he was the 10th, overall pick, but if you redid that draft, I think he goes in the teams.

And I think I think he's an excellent young prospect with a lot of talent. He's got to work on his consistency there a little bit, as he has for a very long time, but I think he has all the tools to be a top six top six winger for them. I understand, you just traded Claudeau.

You wanted more, but the situation was situation with his no movement clause, and I do think nothing against one tip, but I think he's going to be a very good player for a long time. Next one is from Etienne, who wants to know what you are seeing or not seeing in Tristan Luno. He's not one of the guys that I brought up when we talked about the D in the first segment, but another guy who I think, maybe not quite in that tier, but not so far behind that group of guys.

Right. So he was in my first round range in the January ranking. He was not in the one I just put out. And he's one, I've really struggled with this season. To your point, yes, he's not far behind at all. But he is a guy I've struggled with this season. watched him a lot I saw him live

I think once or twice and I watched him a lot on video I talked to a lot of scouts about him he has interesting tools as a 6-2 right shots of defensemen he has good hands

he has good offensive hockey sense you can score goals power play is very good you can move past the puck up the ice very well my issues are I think his skating's below average I think it's defending's below average

and given that the question is, does he have enough offense to justify those concerns? And I've teetered with this all season. I lean now to, I wonder if he could be a legit top four defenseman given those issues when you compare him to

Kortinski, Pickering, Minchikov. I can't get him into that grouping because of those skating issues. But I do like this player and I can be convinced otherwise in the last couple weeks of the season into the playoffs, but I'm not there yet.

What you got in the Frozen Four? This one's from Daniel Martin. I'll ask you first. Who do you have in the Frozen Four? I mean, I went to Michigan and they're the most talented team in the country, so I tend to think that I like them. But it is one of those things where I don't think you ever want to get in the habit of betting against Minnesota State in a tournament like this and in a setting like this.

I think they're the kind of team that defensively can shut it all down. Denver is an amazingly talent to team too. The Michigan Denver game is a big. going to be unreal, but I kind of can't shake the feeling that Minnesota State's winning it anyway. Right, because I think you have, you have three programs there in Michigan, Denver, Minnesota, who are loaded with NHL talent. This is going to be one of the more enjoyable Frozen Ford from an NHL talent perspective

that we've had in quite a few years. Also, we had Caleb McCarr on the 2019 iteration, but there's just like a lot of depth in this one. So, yeah, older teams have a certain edge in this tournament. But I think you saw it with Denver in the regionals. They went up against, you know, a competitive veteran Minnesota Duluth team, which also has an, you know, has an HL talent. And they fared well.

So I do think, for me, the winner of the Frozen Four will come out of that Michigan, Denver game. I think both of those teams are excellent. If I had to pick one right now, it's Denver, but I think it's really tight between those two. Well, and Denver, like, to your point, just be it a Duluth team that plays, I think, comparably to Minnesota State. But it did take a little bit of a bounce for that goal to actually go in. I don't know how long that game would have gone otherwise. So I'm going to take Minnesota State.

So if you want to take Denver, we can put a little side wager on the line for this. And of course, neither of them will win. Michigan will win or something. Yeah, they will. And you know what? That's fine. Bandwagon Leaves fan wants to know why is refereeing so abysmal in hockey nowadays, a question that I think we probably could have taken for this mailbag,

probably any of the weeks in its existence. Yeah, I seen whenever I put out these, I usually, so before, if anyone else to know how you get into the mailbag, usually about a day before the episode airs, I put either a tweet out or put something in the athletics real-time section to submit questions. and we always get a plethora of refereeing-related inquiries. And we usually ignore them, but we thought not to ignore it today. So let's talk about refereeing.

And I think Max and I have a similar opinion is that we think they get a bad rap. It's really hard to be a referee. I mean, that's my main thing is that I think the calls that you, I try to hold myself to the standard of, if it takes me a replay to be fired up but a call, I have to give the referee the grace because they don't. get the replay when they have to make the call. I think they get a lot right. And a lot of times I see a play on the ice happen and I think, what do they call in there? And then I see a replay. And it's actually something that did happen that I would not have seen. Now, I've got a little

different angle. I get that. But I kind of think referees a really hard job. I think they do an okay job at it, to be honest. Yeah. The sport's really, really fast. There's a lot going on down there. And it's just the nature of the sport. You know, you just said you get to watch a replay. And that's kind of the rabbit hole you can go down with this stuff, is do you want everything being on replay? No, not at all. I personally hate the way video review has taken over the game of hockey. I understood the inclination, the goals of it initially were to make sure that the obvious thing that everybody in the world saw, except for the referee, didn't happen. You know, the Matt Dushain goal from a couple of years ago.

but it's evolved into was his hair over the blue line type of things that I wish wasn't in the game but it is and with the game of hockey you have a lot of judgment calls I love baseball and I can see why you can have you can start to remove the help human element from baseball because the strike zone is defined

yeah it's fixed you can I can see a future where players are are taxed with like sort of computer chips for like tagging them on the bases and stuff like that and for who hit the first base first and all that kind of stuff but they give a hockey like how do you define ruffink how do you define interference and if you really start to define it you will notice it happens extremely often in the course of a game that's where those judgment calls come in like is that really a penalty we've called four penalties it's a human variable that I know some people hate exist but it

does exist because if you really ask the refs that call everything, there would be no even strength play in the NHL anymore. Well, and I think there's something to that with the questions here, is that I think people would like more power plays, more offense, because it's exciting. It's the most exciting part of the game. I think that is part of what drives this conversation. I think it's a legitimate conversation. You kind of saw it after the lockout in 05, power plays went really up, and then they

starts to go down. And I really doubt players became more disciplined. I tend to agree with you. To me, it's, you know how in the NFL they say you could call holding on every play? I think there's some kind of infraction that you could call on most plays, whether it's a slash

or whether it's something, some kind of hold or interference. It happens all the time. It's kind of like how you don't call icing just because the guy's two steps over, you know, behind the red line kind of thing. You want the flow of the game. Hockey is a flow sport. I tend to think that saying call the rulebook is a oversimplification that most people would not stand by if they saw what it looked like in practice.

But I do tend to agree, though, with the people who criticize the refs and people criticize the umps in baseball and et cetera. I think there should be a degree of accountability for officials. I don't see why it's unreasonable. I know they have their own union and they negotiate these things. I don't see why it's unreasonable for them. to do a press conference after or talk to the media after if there was a controversial call and even if just we're all human I would be perfectly fine with that official saying I got a wrong here's my question about that though so the I live in Detroit the Armando Galaraga perfect

game right you know gets blown and he says I got it wrong it doesn't undo it right the NBA does their last two minute report and they'll say yeah this should have even called this. It doesn't undo the result of the game. So what is like the ultimate, is it just like a public shame thing? Like what is the ultimate benefit of, I agree with the account. I want a pool reporter. I think I agree with that. I don't want that to get lost here. But I do think at the end of the day, a lot of fans end up with like, well, a lot of good that does me. I think, yes, in that specific example of you, I got it wrong. Yes, it's just a public shaming kind of thing. But there could be instances where there might be a piece of the rulebook that

you're not aware of. You know, that's why I've always, you know, I've really loved, you know, on sports broadcast in the last five years, how they brought in former officials onto football broadcasts and hockey broadcasts and whatnot to explain. Hey, oh, yeah, there's like, in like subsection this of this rule, you should know that this thing exists. And that's why they made this call when you weren't aware of that. So I think there would be a level of that.

But I tend to agree if it's just to just have the guy groveled in the media. about why he got it wrong, then it wouldn't be very useful. Yeah, no, I think we're on the same page there. All right, last one's from Corey Oliver, and I think you're going to love this one. Every year, draft eligible players are favorably compared to current NHLers by hockey media people. This year, Shane Wright getting lots of Patrice Berger on comparisons because it was 200-foot game. Is that fair, or does he project closer to Mani Malholtra? Coming in hot here for Cory Oliver.

Those are two extremes. Nothing against Madi Mulholtra. Great defensive player. There's a difference between the overall impact there between Burjorn and Melholtra. Yeah, just a little bit. And when we had Shane Wright on our podcast beginning the season, he also compared himself to Brucheron. He said that to several other media people.

Clearly, he's had these talking points prepped. And I think they all do. I think you're going to hear a lot of players every year say they try to be Jonathan Taves or Victor Headman. Oh, yeah, no. Their agents get them ready for the comp. We're actually going to have a combine this year. It's going to be very exciting.

And everyone's, they're going to have, like, their little musical chair interviews, and they're all going to be asked the same 10 questions. They're going to have the same 10 answers prepped. And I understand that. I don't like the Bergeron comp, because I think Bergeron is an elite defensive player. And I've never seen right at that level. I think he is a really competitive player.

I think he's good defensively. I don't think he's Bergeron, though. I think Bergeron is a very specific kind of player. The reason why Bergeron went in the second round. Because he doesn't, there's some sort of aesthetics to his game that he lacked when he was 17, 18 years old, that he's obviously developed as time has gone on. I have a comp for him that would be curious to get your opinion on. What do you think of Amika Zabanajet comp for Shane Wright?

I do get that one. Now, here's what I do like about the Bergeron comp is that I've seen, this happened. because I cover the Red Wings and I see a lot of people score a lot of goals against the Red Wings. But Bergeron's shot, especially from the slot area, I think does remind me a lot of the way the puck comes off with Shane Redston. Are you referencing the 11-2 game from the other day? There's a lot of games I'm referencing right now, Corey. They've given up nine or more three times in the last month.

But yeah, I do, I get this advantage Ed, Ed, one. I think that there's a lot there. I mean, I think ultimately what comparables do for people is they're really just supposed to give you like a picture of what to expect, right? And with both of those guys you just said, what you expect are, yes, they're not blazing fast, but they're, there's centermen who can score and who are really detailed. And that is what Shane Wright is. And ultimately, that's what an NHL team is going to like. And if you took a guy at first overall and he becomes Mika Zabandajad, you're content with that. It's not Austin Matthews, but you're perfectly content with that.

Yeah. I mean, you look at the second overall pick from last year, Matthew Baneers. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, yeah, we are, we are realistically expecting him to be better than. the bandage ed? No, I don't think so. But I think he's a really good second line center. And I think, you know, whether that's, the Nico Heeshire went first overall. I think that's pretty much what Nico Heeshire is, right? Right, but I just feel like if, I think, you know, whether he becomes the bandit or below or whatever, I think, you know, that's a hell of a player. As a bandit's a point of game center for the last couple of years kind of thing, plays all situations. That's kind of why I went to him. Yeah. Bergeron obviously has been there for a while too.

Obviously, always been complimented by great scores on that team as well. but I think just Burgesson has won the cups and the cup sorry and and you know had a lot of playoff runs right like it's

you think of him as playoff winner a lot of playoff runs Selky trophy like that's why I think that's high bar but I get where we're coming from with that one all right that is going to do it for us today thanks everybody for listening to this episode of the athletic hockey show's prospect series that you can subscribe to

the athletic audio plus on Apple Podcasts and get bonus content from our entire network. It's going to start with a 30-day free trial, and it's going to be just 99 cents a month after that. Right now, you can subscribe to The Athletic for $1 a month for six months, and you visit theathletic.com slash hockey show. We'll talk to you soon.