The Athletic Hockey Show - Craig Button talks 2021 NHL Draft, Corey’s Mock Draft 1.0, and much more

Episode Date: June 25, 2021

First, TSN’s Director of Scouting, the great Craig Button joins the show to discuss the 2021 NHL Draft prospect pool, how important it is to listen to dissenting voices when it comes to scouting, how his current day evaluations differ from years past, how welcoming differences of opinion adds value to an organization, and much more.Then, Craig and Corey talk about some of the differences in their prospect rankings and discuss the top defensive players like Owen Power, Brandt Clarke, Simon Edvinsson, and Luke Hughes, as well as forwards Fedor Svechkov, Zach L’Heureux, and more.To close things out, the guys break down Corey’s first mock draft of the year and talk about the potential floor for top goalie prospects Jesper Wallstedt and Sebastian Cossa, how a Jack Eichel trade could impact the top of the draft, if Mason McTavish is a top six pick or not, and more.And, don’t forget, you can sign up for an annual subscription to The Athletic for just $3.99 a month when you visit http://theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hey everybody, Max Bolman here again, alongside Corey Pranman for another prospect edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. Really excited for today's show. Corey's got his first mock draft of the summer. It just came out Thursday. We're going to dive into that. But first, we are joined by Craig Button, former director of scouting for the Dallas Stars, former GM of the Calgary Flames, now director of scouting at TSN. Craig, welcome to the show. Thanks for doing this.

Yeah, oh, no, my pleasure. Thanks for asking me to be part of it. you guys are very invested and very involved in watching prospects and evaluating them and ranking them. And I'm the same as you guys. You know, there's lots of blowback when people disagree with us, right? We never get anything that goes, geez, you guys were right. Geez, Max had it spot on.

Corey had it spot on. But boy, if you don't get it right and I always joke about it, you know, people get the cherry pick. So if they don't like one part of your thing, they can cherry pick it. They don't realize, I think Corey. you had 150 players ranked, right? So somebody will go, how could you have that guy in 84? He's way better than that.

He should be at least 44. So, and Max, you know, you go through it with prospects. So it's all part and parcel, but it's fun because you know what it means? It means people are interested. And when people are interested, that's good. Yeah. And I think, you know, you've been around this field for a while. I think the interest in this region has definitely is a lot different than five, 10,

15 years ago. There's a lot more, I think, public discourse about these kind of things. There is. And the public, and I say this all the time. I have zero issue with disagreement or debate, the dialogue that goes into it. And I learn all the time. I learn and I hear some, I go, oh, I had thought about that. Or, geez, that's a good point. That's something I better go and watch for and everything. So it becomes very instructive for me in the work I'm doing to hear the voices of others and yourselves who are very invested in it. Your voices have a little bit more weighting than others. But it's something that I think, okay, yeah, I better evaluate this a little bit deeper

and a little bit wider. And it certainly helps me by having that public discourse and more involved, as you point out, Corey, over the last number of years. Yeah. And kind of like you said, I think all voices have some value. I think, you know, there will be a very very. varying ranges of experience or knowledge in a particular area. But as long as somebody has passion and they try to learn and they try to, you know,

and do their best, I think that's still a valuable opinion. And it definitely adds to the discourse. Well, let me share a quick story with you, just about that. So, you know, we had hired when I was with the Dallas Stars in 1993. We hired a gentleman by the name of Hase Edlin. to scout for us in Sweden. And he had played with the Fulunda team. He was a very well regarded.

Alfie Dahlin was very good friends with Hossi. And he had recommended him. So we went and spent time with Hase and we said, oh yeah, he'll be terrific. And he was terrific. Let me tell you how terrific he was in his first year. Now, we didn't have the same history with him,

but I'll tell you how good he was. He kept telling us that we should really consider drafting this player. And we kept, okay, good. And he kept, you know, in his own soft manner, but assertive, he kept saying, I really think this guy could be a really good player. And the player ended up being drafted in the middle rounds. I forget if it was the fourth or fifth round.

The player's name was Daniel Alfredson. Daniel Alfredson, who Hasei knew very well. And so even though we didn't have a long history with him, Hasei, knowledge should have been heated and his recommendation should have been heated more than we gave it. I mean, Ottawa senators drafted him and then we know what Daniel became. But, you know, always listen. Always listen. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of experience or little experience, consider all the different thoughts and opinions. Right. And I think there's, I think there's some value to, you know, at some point, you always try to learn and get better, but at some point you get setting your ways a little bit,

and you probably don't develop new skills as quickly as you once did. And people can come along with different perspectives that I think can add a valuable angle. And that's the key thing is it's about value added, right? Like, you know, who's adding a different perspective? Who's asking you to look at things a little bit differently? I worked with Bob Jernander, a great high school coach in Minnesota, just a wonderful guy. And one of the things that I always impressed, he said, listen to the dissenting voice.

It could be the voice that saves all our butts. And it doesn't mean that they're right, but just listen. Just listen and consider what it means and understand. Because Corey and Max, you know this. And I think there's a lot of kind of, well, this is the consensus thought. So therefore, I'm just going to kind of go along with it. No. Like come to an understanding of where you're comfortable.

don't just follow without understanding, you know, what it all means. Right. Even if that dissenting voice is just kind of going to get you to go back and check it again, right? Like I thought this guy was a high-end skater. You think he's average? Let me go back and make sure that I actually think he's as good a skater as I thought he was. Well, even just testing beliefs, right? Like even somebody that's just going to be a contrarian to test your beliefs

and they really see, you know, how strong you are. Or do you really not like that player or is it just something that happened? And, you know, Les Jackson, who I worked with for a long time, long time executive in the NHL with the Dallas Stars, Minnesota North Stars. But we had hired a scout and a good scout. And he was doing some crossover. He just started a crossover. And we were in our meetings. And the scout kept talking about, well, he didn't play good for me.

He didn't play good for me. He'd watch him two games. He didn't play good for me. So Les kept hearing this. And he finally turned to him, he goes, well, the next time we send you out to watch these players that have been that have been. that have been recommended by our other key people, can you just phone ahead and let the player know that you're coming? So maybe they'll play good for you.

Evaluation isn't about did they play good for me, right? Listen to what other people are saying. Dialogue, debate, discussion, disagreement. It's all part of it, right? But like, don't just say he didn't play good for me, therefore he's not good. Because we've all been to games at the highest levels and certainly with prospects,

where guys you're going in didn't have a good game. Doesn't mean they're not good players. And conversely, just because a guy has a good game, doesn't mean he's a good player. Yeah. And I definitely hear a lot of those stories from talking to scouts in the league about, you know, they go in to watch a guy who's highly touted or a high score. They go in, you know, score as much in those three or four junior games they see.

They don't give them as high a grade. And I think that's kind of where video has helped a lot in this realm, is being able to see a lot of the things you can't always see live. And, you know, you talk to guys, you talk to teams now who say, you know, they'll go through all the guys scoring plays during their draft prep and stuff like that to compound on the live work they've already done to make sure they're not missing anything. I mean, I remember in Artie Kaliav's draft year, I saw him play with Hamilton live, maybe three or four times.

He didn't score any of the games I was at. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a good goal score because I was obviously aware of the 50 goals he scored during the course of the season. And I didn't get a chance to see that, but you obviously can go back and do that homework. Just kind of going back to the dissenting point, when you were a manager, how did you balance that? Because when I talk to people around the league, I get varying perspectives on this. I think some people want to be in an environment where everybody's kind of pulling in the same direction. But I also think there's probably value to kind of what you said.

I don't think you want a bunch of people who are all don't, you know, voice different opinions or don't push back. I didn't want to say that. I don't know if they're all like, yes, man, because I think that'd be a little harsh. But I think that's a balance, I think, when trying to build a management staff and a scouting staff. How did you balance that when you were in the league? Well, you know, one of the things, and it's inherent in any industry, there's kind of this pack mentality, right? And to even just move away from the pack and group thought is not easy. It's not easy.

And so now and different levels of experience, different levels of conviction, right? You know, how many times have you guys heard things? Well, I really potted my fist on the table. Well, what? Just because you pondered your fist on the table, that means you're right? Like, not great. What about the guy that soft spoken that just kind of sits back in the room and goes, I really think that player.

I'll give you an example of that. Maddie Weissan, who worked for the Edmonton orders for years, he was their chief European scout. Brilliant. He knew Europe like the back of his hand. He knew Finland and everything. So we hired him, Bob Clark was our man. We hired him in Minnesota. He ended up having a stroke at the 1992 World Junior Tournament.

So that was infuse in Germany. So he recovered. He came to our meetings for the draft in 1992. So there was a couple of things. finished players we really liked. One of them was Yarko Varvio and Yarko was a was a really good skilled goal score and we really liked them. And the other guy was Yerry Lettnan. And we had, we had Yarko raided ahead of Yerry. And Maddie, his speech was coming back. So we used a lot of hand signals, right? And you know, where would you take him? And he kept saying, he kept putting up two like, you know,

for second round for Yerry Letman and he kept going like this. No, we got to flip Varvio and and letting it. Anyway, go back and look at it. We drafted Yerko Varvio in the second round. We ended up drafting Gary Lettman in the fourth round. Les Jackson,

who I just mentioned, he said next year Maddie, when you come to our meetings, can you just send your hands? But there was a perfect example of Maddie, you know, he was strong in what he believed, Right. And he had his way of doing it.

It wasn't pounding his fist. He just, too. Like he kept, and Bob Clark had, Les Jackson kept coming back to him. He just kept going too. That's where he thought letting in fit. So, you know, I think that to your point, Corey, it's really important to create an environment where all voices are heard. One of my things that I still don't get and I'll never understand it and I never operated in this way, you know, at the outset of, of my career in Minnesota, Dallas and through Calgary and whatnot,

is there's only so many days you have to scout players. And now you're sending players, people across to watch these different players. The fact that information is not shared with respect to scouting reports, we shared it. We wanted all our people to know, okay, Corey went to this game. Understand we're sending you, we're spending a lot of money, we're investing. here's what Corey has said in his view. And you need to be aware of it.

And you need to say, geez, Corey thinks he's a really good skater. I didn't think he was that good. Corey's right. Or conversely, Corey sees my reports and says, geez, Craig really has this guy rated highly. I'm not so sure that he should be. Well, now I get to go in and evaluate my own work. That back and forth work with really, I mean, there is, you know, finite time and finite. resources to evaluate players.

So how do you use that all? I'm still shocked here in 2021 that I hear NHL teams, and there's a lot of them that don't share the scouting information with their scouts. So the argument I usually hear about that is, I think the people at the top are usually worried if the area scouts can see their reports, it will bias them.

If my boss likes this guy and I say I don't, then it creates some political pressure on them. And I think, you know, that's a, that's a struggle because I think you want to create a conducive work environment, but people are human at the same time. And there's, you know, just obvious influences. But I agree what you said, too, on the limited time factor. You know, I, you know, at the end, you know, obviously games are played often. But, you know, for most of the leagues that are covered junior in college, most of those games are on weekends. You only have so many weekends in a season to really scout these players. And I know for basically,

especially for the crossover and the directors, they have to really budget those schedules, you know, and be very precise in how they use those weekends. But yeah, absolutely. And I don't know what the right path is because I think there's a balance between trying to foster a cooperative environment and making sure you're getting everybody's best opinions that are not influenced. I think that's just not a hockey thing. That's a thing that I think a lot of corporations struggle with.

They do, Corey. So as I talked about, who wants to say, who wants to oppose the boss? So already, now there's a power dynamic. So the boss is worried about bias and the boss is creating a power dynamic. That's not good either. And so what I would say is, like, I mean, like players, you're constantly evaluating the players. We also have to constantly be evaluating your own people. So what I would say is if you've got a concern about bias, it's not about the process.

It's about the people. So get the right people. Okay. So like, I'm just saying, I don't buy it. And I'll tell you about a boss. I'll share another story with you.

1995. No, 1996. Our team, uh, was, uh, not very good.

Wasn't very good in Dallas. And, Albany had just stepped down from coaching. We had Craig Ramsey as part of our management group. And we started sitting down talking about potential. free agents. We're looking at certain spots on our team, certain spots on our team, this defenseman, but we're looking at a third line center. And Craig Ramsey brought up the name Mike Ritchie. And Mike was with the Colorado Avalanche. And Bob said, Mike Ritchie's not that good.

And Craig Ramsey went toe to toe with. He said, Bob, I think you better evaluate. He goes, he's a pretty good player. Bob goes, I don't think he is. I think you better evaluate. Here's what came out of this. Two things came out of that. Number one, We said, is we're going to go watch potential free agents and players for trade. We're going to go. We're going to watch video. We had tapes made of all the different players and we'd watch them. And then we would go together and watch the game together.

We weren't opposed to being at the same game together. This process went on for three months. And we came to our meetings at the end of May. Bob started off the meeting. He said, you know what's something? I want to say this right now. Craig Ramsey is exactly right. Mike Ritchie would be a really good third line center.

Bob is the boss said a template that he wasn't worried about being right for himself. He was being right for the group. That's instilling a culture. And if you have a culture where you're worried about bias, you're creating another problem. And that starts with the leaders. And quite frankly, there's a lot of bad leadership going on in professional sports and in industries all around the world. Yep. No, that's a great example. That's a great example of sending a culture and good leadership.

And I, you know, you kind of, like I said, you hear stories about, about potential bias. You hear stories kind of what you said before about the pound and the table thing where, you know, you know, maybe the guy who is soft spoken or doesn't have great public speaking skills. Doesn't he get their voice heard and you. And I think there's a reasonable debate you can have on what the best maybe there are different ways you can handle your meetings and your list making process. that allows different skill sets that have equal knowledge to get their opinions across. Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of teams that I've talked to, I'm sure you talk to, have constant discussions about process and the best ways to build out a list. At the end of the day, for these amateur staffs, anyway, the pro staffs are a little different. But for the amateur staffs, you know, that's their work product, is their list.

and you got to make sure that list is built in the best way possible. Yeah, with the inputs from everybody, because it's the inputs from everybody watching the games, evaluating the players that are going to get you to, is it going to be fully complete, it's never fully complete? But what you're working, and Corey, you've heard me use this term before, you're building a dossier on the players, and you're adding to it all the time, right?

And you're not only adding to it, you're evaluating it. And okay, I was right here. I was wrong there. And, you know, one of the things that I've seen over years, too, and this is another part of the evaluation list making thing. Well, you had this guy rated really high in November. How come he's rated lower now? Because I, two things. I may have overrated him in November.

Or maybe he's not as good as I thought. Or maybe he hasn't progressed to the level of I thought. And I think that allowing. people in your group to just be able to acknowledge, hey, you know what? Like, you know what? I was not, I was really sure. I'm not, I'm more sure that I, that I shouldn't have been so sure. And if that makes sense.

And I think you got to do that. I think you can think of guys in this year's draft that example. I think at one point, I forgot which list it was. I think at one point you had out to route to rated rather highly on one of the 2021 list you might have done over the year. I did, I did as well. And he was like, well, you were wrong. I mean, I guess so.

You know, you know, you, you know, it's a snapshot in time. And you definitely, if you're, if he's going to go a lot lower now, then that, then yes, I guess that opinion was wrong. But the information at the time, you know, we've gone to a lot of the same tournaments. If you saw him at his U17 challenge, you saw him at his U18 world is underage, he saw him as Halenka, you know, his, his world junior underage, you would have thought, you know, this is the profile, but typically high end prospect. And he didn't step forward in his draft season and you incorporate the new information.

You know, I presume, I don't know where you were after the 17 challenge, but I really liked Fabian Lise Lest Lest Lestl a lot there. And I liked him a lot at his underage season. And he didn't take the big steps forward this season and you incorporate that new information. Well, just quickly, I'm on board with both the assessments on Ratu and Fabio Lassel. But that being said, again, it's evaluation is never static. And just because what we, what it's a, it's a, it's a moment, it's a snapshot in time. So when you're looking at November 2020 and you're saying, okay, we think these players are there,

you're based on the, you're using the knowledge base you have, the information you have at that point in time to try to formulate opinion. And, and NHL teams are doing lists all the time over the, They're up, down, adjusting everything that goes with it, right? They're just not public. And again, Corey, you know and Max, you know, in the public sphere, oh, well, geez, you had this guy rated high in November. Yeah, I did. I know I did. But guess what?

Things have changed. And my thinking has changed. My thoughts have changed. The evaluations have become, I've got more information for my evaluations. And that's what has to be considered. And, you know, when you're going into it, you have to. to have to have the confidence that not only the confidence in the evaluations you're making, but also the confidence to say, hey, listen, this is new information that's allowing me to form

new opinions. Certainly within the one or two years of a player's draft cycle, it's going to be a very fluid kind of living, breathing thing. But I wonder for you, when you talk about self-evaluation, I mean, what's the time frame that you usually use for that on a process? When you decide, okay, I overrated this guy. I mean, how much is that, you know, I need to reflect on why I thought he had this? Like, how long of a term are you looking at when you make those decisions? So what I would say, Max, is it's not, I think it's ongoing. For me, it's ongoing.

Now, give you an example, Moritz-Sight. Okay. I watch Moritz. I like Moritz. I thought Moritz was a real good, good solid player. I wasn't sure or confident in Moritz-Siders puck play is a big. to produce offensively and do those things. That would be, you know, representative of a top end draft pick, right?

I like them. And I'll tell you this. I remember talking to Jeff Blasheel at the draft. He went six in that draft. Jeff, the head coach, the Red Wings. And we were just sitting there was a bunch of us standing around talking about the draft. And so Jeff asked me about more. So I said, hey, listen, I understand you like a player draft him.

Don't worry what anybody else says. Here's where I thought he was. what I thought about his game. And I compared them to Brandon Carlo. Now, Jeff looked at me, he goes, I'll take Brandon Carle, which is a real insight into how coach is like, you know, again, you know, there tends to be at times an exuberance about who you're drafting without. And there's always a reality, but you should be excited about who you're drafting. Carl's a big defenseman. Yeah, but I can tell you this.

It didn't take me very long, maybe a year, watching more its play in the American hockey. he could go, yeah, his puck plays better than I gave him credit for. Much better than I gave credit for. His offensive play is my, but then Max, I also circle back to the people in Manhattan and ask them. They said, yeah, we didn't put him in those situations, but we always felt that he was, it was something he could work on, it was something he could develop. And that's part of projection too.

I always feel Max, too, that when you're looking at projection, instead of saying he's going to be this and make it definitive, like make it a little bit, I think it could be a top pair defenseman, but at the very least I think it can be a number three. You know, I think he has the potential to play as a real solid number two center, but at the very least, he'll be a number three center. Or he'll be a 20 goal score,

maybe not a primary goal score. And I think when you look at that and that just a little bit of a band, that it allows you for that development, Because there's development that's going on and a player might develop more, he might develop less. So when you ask me about the evaluation process, honestly, Max, it's ongoing. Every time I go watch a player, I want to assess where was I right? Where was I off? Where was I a lot off?

And what did I miss? I really do. I honestly can say that the overall, I think comes for me. I use a three to four year time. group. That's really where I get to when I can say, okay, I was really off on this player or I was spot on. And you know, and you're going to have ones you were spot on on. And you're going to have ones you were spot off on. And some to your point that it's, you know, the player grew. Like it wasn't necessarily that what you were seeing wasn't accurate. It was just the player

developed really well. And that goes to development. Corey and I have talked about this, Max. And I know Max, you and I have talked about this as well. You know, a player gets drafted. How he gets developed is really important to what you've projected that player to be as well. And some teams do a better job of development than others. One thing as well is like when you're watching players just kind of you sit in and it's ongoing, it's not just ongoing in a static way. You get all kinds of new different types of information. You can use the side for example.

You know, we start off, you know, he's as in his 16-year-old season, he's playing at the U-18, U-20 level, you know, that's a, you know, a new environment for him. He's really young. we see how he does there. Then he goes to play pro. The team's really good. Doesn't get a lot of ice time. Doesn't get power play time.

That's some different kind of information. He goes to the U20B pool. He's great there. That's new information. He goes to the world championships. It does really well. That's a completely different type of information. And then like Craig says,

he goes to the American League. He has his NHL camp. Very different information from the DEL. And you see how he does there. And it's like, okay, how do you reincorporate that? Now, there's all. kinds of ways of balance that maybe you watch the DEL and doesn't have the offense, doesn't get a power play time, and it makes you worried, or you watch him at the U20B pool, the world championships,

and you value that a little bit differently than the DEL. I'm sure the Red Wings did. It's why he went sixth overall. And there's no, there's no formulaic way on the right way to do all those kind of things. And I think that's part of the challenge and part of what it makes, I think, this kind of job a little bit of a puzzle at times. Yeah. And sometimes that puzzle, 3D. It's not, and sometimes it's 2,500 pieces 3D, right? And, you know, and you, you both know that. You know, Corey, it's very interesting you bring up more,

it's and you bring up all those things. And there's a really good prospect for the 20, 22 draft. Uriislav Kost, yeah, he's a Slovakian player. He's a 6 foot 4 centermink. So, so here's his progression. So as a U-17 player, he's playing at the U-20 tournament. then because Slovakia didn't qualify for the U-18 tournament, they were relegated, he doesn't get to participate in the U-18 tournament in Dallas.

Then he gets named to the World Championship roster. Now, think about this, he starts at U-20, goes to the World Championships, Corey's going to have a chance to watch him at the Halenka tournament, which is a U-18 tournament, before he goes back to the U-20 tournament. Like you just think about all these experiences this young player is going through in this short period of time. And it kind of dovetails exactly to what you were saying about more excited. Yeah. I mean, obviously last year's world champion, this world championship, I mean, it was a weird one.

But I was looking at about a curiosity. I looked how many guys who were not, who were in the year before their draft season played in the world championships. And the list is an extremely small number, not just for Saskosky, but for Simon Nemich as well, he was also at that. Yes. You know, those are, you know, both of them are really top prospects for next year. But yeah, I mean, that's, and I'm watching, I watch those World Championships games to watch both of those guys. And there's absolutely no context for this.

Like, there's no, like, you can't say, it's like, you know, you've done this for a while. Like, how much can you say, oh, yeah, when that 16-year-old is at the world championship, you played like this and slap cost you played like this. And, you know, the guys like cider to some extent. Stutzelelik came along, but you started to film it a little bit more. When the guys have no context behind them, that makes it really hard. Like guys like Alexander Texay, who are playing in France, for example, like guys like that, you can watch them all you want and do your best, but when there's no, when there's no data points, when there's no, you know, there's no context,

you know, I had someone make the example to me a couple of years ago, you know, you can watch the CHL and when the 6-2 center who can skate and has skill, it puts up 90 points, come along, you can say I've seen that 200 times before and I, you know, I kind of an idea how that projects out. For guys like Texier and Scyer and Svkovsky in these examples, you're kind of, you know, you're always guessing, but you're more guessing than you usually are in those instances. Well, go back to the 1988 draft and, you know, Mike Madonna went first and Trevor Lyndon went number two. And because of those exact reasons, contact, Curtis decision goes three. Darren Shannon goes four.

Daniel Doreg, big strapping right-winger in the Quebec League goes five. Scott Pearson goes six. Another big strapping. Because everybody's seen these players and they're projecting, right? Marty Jellan, it goes seven. The kid from Thayer Academy goes eighth, Jeremy Roneck is a high school player. The ninth player comes from the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League, Notre Dame Hounds, Rod Brindamore. And the 10th player selected as Timo Salani, the Finnish European player,

we're not sure about how good these guys can be, right? Like, just think about 8, 9, and 10 from the 88 drafts. And I think it's a, honestly, Corey, I think it's a great example of what you just talked about. The context you have for saying, I've seen Curtis decision, Darren Shannon and Daniel, Dore, and Scott Pierce, and Marty Jellana. I don't have as much confidence because I don't have the same context on Ronet, Brindamore, and Salani. And, you know, I mean, we're talking about three fabulous players. And a great example there in terms of the, you know, the Thayer example. I think you kind of know, I think, you know, 10, 20 years ago, there were a lot more examples of top 10, top five, even first overall picks who came out of U.S. high school.

The U.S. scouting framework has changed a lot with the NTDP, with a lot of top USA prospects tend to go to the U.S. HL, not always, but they tend to. I would be so fascinated to see in this current climate, obviously that Casey Middell said a couple of years ago, but I'd be so fascinated to see like a really elite, elite USA prospect, just stay in high school for his draft season, who's like people can might consider off, you know,

a top five, top three, even first overall kind of talent. It would be such an amazing debate. And while we have context, you know, you can go back to the Brian Lawton era, but like you don't have any kind of recent context. I think it would,

I think the internet would melt down if that was the if that's something like that happened. But it's fascinating too, and you talk about how different events, you know, influence future events. Bobby Carpenter was drafted out of high school, stepped right into the NHL as an 18-year-old

and scored 30 goals. Brian Lawton becomes the first overall pick. Now, we're talking third overall, the first overall, didn't have the same record of success. Then Tom Barrasso steps right out of high school, wins the Vezan a trophy, been rookie of the year, yet somehow this fear factor of other players.

And I'm just using top guys, a first, third, and fifth overall pick in a span. But there was other high school players that were drafted that didn't turn out to be. And that's still, you know, keep in mind that Brian Leach, go look at Brian Leach's draft year. Like, I mean, he was a phenomenal, phenomenal player. But he was a high school player. And he wasn't big by definition of big. So it's also interesting to me how negative events or negative outcomes influence future events and create a caution. Yet, where there's lots of evidence where be careful just because you have 200 examples,

doesn't mean that those ones are going to be any more right. Corey, to your point about the high level USA player playing high school potentially. So when I was in high school, we had, there was a, in our league, there was a finish exchange student from Grand Rapids. So Michigan High School Hockey went to Geneson, gave by the name of Artu Lamberg. He comes over, and at Geneson High, Michigan High School, you put up 4.9 points per game, 128 points in 26 games. The highest level that he played when he got back over to Finland was the Swamisaria, which is the number three league in Finland.

So a kid like that comes over, and it was an unbelievable player. He was probably the best player in the state of Michigan that year, and it was five points a game, and he never even made it to the Finnish league when he got back home. high school hockey is I think when I watch it now it is a tougher evaluation not an impossible it's a tougher evaluation level like you can watch some of these top like minnesota high school or new inland prep guys in their league and they could look dominant in some games but you will talk to nshl scouts and they will call them mediocre prospects and sometimes they're wrong and sometimes it ends and often they're right exactly it would be so interesting to see

i'm trying to think of a good example like even like a guy from like next year like Logan Kooley, for example. It would be so interesting to see, like, just Logan Kooley was just playing high school level hockey and just absolutely destroying it at that level. Maybe he goes to a Holinka and that might be it for his high level events. Maybe he plays a couple of USHL games. Maybe, maybe he goes to the U18 world at the end, probably doesn't. I would be, it would be so fascinating to see how that debate would unfold and, you know, how do you rank the kid in high school versus Slavkovsky versus, you know, guys like, you know, Brad Lambert versus guys like Salaminson or Tristan Luno or all these other guys who are highly thought of who are playing better levels of competition.

I don't think we've seen a lot of that. I said Casey Mills, that was a recent example. But really, you don't really see a lot of high school guys being discussed as high first round picks in the modern era. So I would, I think that would just be so fascinating if that ever happened again. Well, and a lot of them, and let's be, let's be, you know, the national team development program has, you know, recruits so many of the top players that would be playing prep school or high school. And the USHL has also done a fantastic job of created an environment where players can come in and see a path of development that can help them further along. And, you know, it's unfortunate that we've seen, you know, New England prep school and high school. school hockey used to be fantastic.

It was. It was unbelievable the quality of player. But they don't have the same quality of player. And there's different reasons for that. And certainly the national team development program in the USHL have been big reasons because they've been able to attract a lot of those high quality players, which to your point, Corey and Max, you know, takes away from the quality of player in high school or

prep school hockey. Yeah. I mean, we had like Jane Strubal and John Farinacci. recently, but those are not like high echel. It's not like Jack Eichol. It's not like Jack Eichael, I mean, like imagine him playing high school hockey. It would have been frightening. I want to ask to both you about a couple players on your respective list that you have ranked in all different spots. But before I get to that really quick, Craig, I just wanted to know what's one thing that you do differently in your evaluation than you did five, 10, 15 years ago? What's something that you've

changed over the years? You know, and Corey and I had this discussion. And it's one of the things that that I think, you know, you, it's not about confidence so much. It's just about, and I don't want to use it in a negative context. It's just kind of damned at torpedoes. Corey and I have had a lot of discussions over the years on different players, right? But where I get to with players now, like, I really don't care anymore what anybody thinks. I'm going to try to rank the players that I think are the best. And I think other people are doing that.

Right. But I get this comment. Wow. How do you have that guy rated? And I get this from NHL teams too. This isn't just public. I get this from, I said, because I think he's a really good player. And they go, really? I said, yeah, really.

Like, whereas, you know, like, and when I say this, like, there's times when you want to be a little bit more cautious. And I'm not saying that I'm not cognizant of that. But like, like, and the one I'm going to bring up, Corey and I had long talks. about cold coffee. And I know how much Corey liked them. And I know how much Corey regarded cold coffee. And I remember getting to a point and I just said, damn the torpedoes. I just don't care.

I think this guy's too good. I might be wrong. But I wasn't worth, whereas previous time I had said, okay, I could put them here. Is it, it saved me some grief. I'll be straightforward. It saved me some grief, right? I don't care anymore. I think that's the biggest thing.

I've always been a listener. I've always been open-minded. I'm always looking for new ways to evaluate. I'm always like, you know, I talked about 1996. We were using video in the 90s to try to evaluate places because we understood that there was always so many times we could look at it. The quality wasn't the same. The access wasn't the same.

But we were using it. We were using data and everything. So I find that the influx of technology, has made that way more accessible. And I love live games. I also love video scouting because I can go watch a live game and I go back and I can evaluate on video and I say, oh, I missed that. Oh, boy, that's a good.

Geez, I was a little bit too hard on that evaluation. I can make those adjustments. And data, you know, you can look at it and say, okay, this is where players have fit in. This is where scoring chances are really valuable. So I've always used it. the access of technology and how good it is has helped me, and I love it. But I think that I'm not as, not that I was ever concerned. Probably cautious is a little bit better word.

But I really, and I can tell you this. Like I left the U18 tournament. I left the U18 tournament where Corey was at. And I said to myself, Max, there were certain players that just to me, I just said, they're too good. And they weren't at the tournament. They were players that weren't at the tournament that solidified my belief in them. And there's no better example that for me than Matthew Coronado.

I left there at stake, like, you know, having not seen Matthew Coronado at the tournament or period, I just said, that guy's that good. That's how I left there feeling. And so that's just one example of a guy that like, does it mean I'm right? No, but that's, I'm prepared to put a stake in the ground on Matthew Coronado. I felt that way about Team USA for, in terms of Lucius and Hughes to some extent, because, you know, we were both at the U-17 challenge, you know, two November's ago. Team USA won second, but I thought they were the best team there. I thought they were a dynamic team.

You know, they, they, you know, they scored a ton of goals. And I thought, you know, this is a really talented team. And obviously, Hughes and Lucius both couldn't play in the tournament. and that team wasn't bad, but they weren't good. They weren't, I would say, dangerous and even strength in any real significant manner. They lacked any kind of transition or generation outside of their power play. And I think, you know, I think I was talking to a lot of scouts of that tournament who are like, you know, they're really missing a guy who can take the puck out of his defensive zone

and bring it into the offensive zone and create a controlled entry. And it's like, geez, I wonder who that guy is. And honestly, that would be the defenseman. Hugh. So that was one thing I took that term in and to kind of blow off that point, you just said. Yeah, no, and I think that that is. Sometimes, you know, what's the line? The absence makes the heart grow fonder. It applies in Scotty, too. Well, that's a great answer. And it dovetails really well into our next segment. So I'm going to ask you to compare a few players that you, or contrast, I guess, a few players,

that you have ranked in different spots on your list. And I wanted to start really just with a grouping. Craig, you've got the top four defense. in this draft. Owen Power, Brandt, Clark, Simon Edvinson, and Luke Hughes, one through four. Corey, you've got them scattered kind of throughout your top 12. I think it's one, four, eight, and 12. Craig, how good, we'll start with you. How good do you think this crop of defensemen is at the top of this draft?

Well, the first thing I want to say is, I can't believe how wrong Corey is. I look at it. I just go, I mean, like, I go, how could he get this so wrong? You know, you sit there, you go, like, I'm amazed. And I sit there, and I try to evaluate all kidding aside. And we've had this discussion. You know, I would love to be able to tell everybody this guy's better than this guy who's better than this guy. If I was able to do that, first of all, I'd be getting paid more money than I could ever imagine.

And nobody would know who I was that somebody would would squirrel me away and make sure that I wasn't given away my information. So again, it comes down to looking at where the players are at, you know, what do you value a little bit more than somebody else. It's not all the same. And where Corey puts a little bit greater emphasis on one thing, it doesn't mean that it's not something I value, but I just look. But here's a big part of it, Max. And I think that this and Corey will tell you the same thing. Part of this evaluation is projection. We're not just looking at today. We're also looking at where they can be at in those three to four years time. Like, what player has the ability to continue to develop?

What player is on top? I got asked this question the other day on radio. They asked me where I had Braden Point in his draft year. I said, too low. And they said, what do you mean too low? I said, I had him rated in the top 20 players. It was still too low. It's right.

So it doesn't matter that I had them rated in the top 20. I think it was 16 or 17. I don't recall, right? it was still too low. And if you go back and look at the list, you're going like, there was a guy's rated ahead. I had rated out of him. Like, no way, right?

But that's where you go. So I think that it's about recognizing, okay, I can understand why Corey would have a player at 12 and a player at 8. It's more than if I had a player at 4 and Corey had him at 37, I might, that's when I really go when I start to go. What am I? And understand where I go here too. this is always my first thought.

What am I missing? I never go to the other way and say, what is he missing? You know, I might raise an eyebrow, but I start to go, honestly, that's really where I go. So, you know, those four, I'm going to have a final list coming out here

in the next seven to 10 days, right? And it's not going to be the same four guys in the top four spots. Yeah. It just isn't. But it's not going to, you're not going to see somebody that was, that I had rated 17, moving to the top five.

It's going to be just a little bit of a sliding scale. So that's, but, but I think, you know, in a year of defense, in a year where I think there's some really good defensemen, I think that's where I, and I look and I see those types of defensemen,

they're all different. All power is different than Brian Clark, who's different than Simon Evanson, who's different than Luke Hughes. But, but I look at them and I project them out as guys that I think can have real meaningful roles. I think the point you made about

projection versus now is probably, you know, I'm probably considered one of the low guys on Edmondson. I haven't had my 12 on my list. And I think that's, I think a big part of that is, you know, when I talk to the NHL scouts who are really, really big on this guy, the argument is you have to project this guy forward, five, six years, the six four guy who could skate who has, you know, not an elite skill, but pretty good skill. And I respect that. And it's why I still think this guy's going to be a, you know, a really good NHL defenseman. I have some mild reservations on, on how his season went, on how his UA teams went, not to say they weren't good,

it wasn't a good season or a good tournament. I wouldn't call either that exceptional. So I think that's kind of where I'm like, maybe I wouldn't move him right up to that top tier, but I think I've written this in my article that I think he has top pair potential. I'm not going to sit here and say Craig is, you know, crazy to have him top four because I know plenty of NHL scouts, I respect to have him in that range.

But I think that's that present versus projection, I think small divide is, is I think where is where maybe the difference of opinions come in on that one. So, so Max, just to go back to, you know, that question. So I talk about Braden Point and I say too low, right? So I went into the U18 tournament with this thought in my mind with Simon Edmondson, who I've seen play for a number of years, like Corey. And I asked myself this question. I said, is he Hayden Fleury?

Hayden Fleury was the eighth overall pet. And I had him rated ahead of Braden point. So there's just a, and so you watch Hayden play. Hayden competed. Hayden is still a great skater. But Hayden delivers zero offensive capability, zero. Right? And so I'm going in watching Simon and wondering, asking myself, okay, we talk about using

the past to try to, you know, evaluate the present. And I'm trying to look, I don't think anybody would disagree and say that Simon Evanston isn't a fantastic skater. And we all can take out the tape measure. But now you're trying to project, okay, is he a top pair of defensemen? Is he a second pair of defenseman? Does he have the people talk about his offensive ability? I don't think that Simon Evanston is going to put up a lot of points.

I don't. Do I think that he can, you know, be the player that can shut down the cycle in the defensive zone, exit the defensive zone, get the puck moving through the neutral zone? Yeah. but offensively, I don't see what I call his offensive abilities per functionary. Just try to get it to the right guys that are better than him. And that's a skill. But so to Corey's point, right, like, you know, to where I'm at was, that's where I went into it with, right?

And there's adjustments that I'm making through the course of this. And again, when my final list, Simon Evanson will not be in the top floor. And that's not a knock against Simon Evanston. He won't be. I think he has a little bit more skilled than Hayden and Fleury. I agree with you. I agree with you. But I'm just,

but it's at a valuation. No, but I think that's a good comparison because I think, you know, you can go back to the draft and, I forgot who went after Flurry. Was Elyers and Nealander before or after him? So the Fleury goes seven, because Neelander went eight and Heelers went nine.

So Hayden went seven. Yeah, that's what I recall now. Yeah. So yeah, that's a good, that's a good example. And I think Evan said, I could see him like a second power play guy. I don't think he has no offense. I think there could be some, some offense in the NHL. When I, you know, when you look at like, say, Clark, for example, you, that's the

P.P.1 guy, you know, he obviously, his skating is going to be the major test of him. You know, can he play the game like Adam Fox, for example, but, you know, he's the guy. I think you look at it at this draft for the offense. I think Luke and power will have offense, but their offense will be. generated in different ways. So, yeah. So, you know, just quickly back, Max, to your question, too, and evaluating. Like, Ryan McDonough was an excellent high school hockey player.

Back to the high school conversation, right? He was excellent at the University of Wisconsin. He was drafted, what, 15th, somewhere, 14, 15 by the Montreal Canadian. Right? You watch Ryan McDonnell play now for the Tapa Bay. Like, you want him on your team. He is not an offensive creator. He's a player that gets the puck out of your zone, gets it up, the ice can join the attack,

can be that second power play guy, as you point out, Corey. But he's not going to, you know, you can look back and say that, but you're watching all those things. And, you know, I thought he'd be a little bit better offensively, but you watch Ryan McDonough, who's an excellent skater. Yep. You know, that's the, is that Simon Edmondson? A great point. And McDonough, as you might recall, didn't have a lot of offense in high school.

didn't have a lot of offense in college. But then when he goes to the Rangers, I forgot the exact years, but he had some 30, some 40 points, seasons. He's having some season where he's like tripling the amount of points he's had in college in a given year.

And that goes to projection. Projection is, you know, you're predicting the future of humans. It's an uncertain thing. predicting the future of teenage humans to win their adults. It's, you know, it's not a very clear cut science,

but that is a, example of projection that this guy, I think in eight years is going to be this kind of player for X and Y reasons that you can't see in a game that he's playing right now. But when he gets there, he's going to be that. And that is, I think, the hardest thing to do. I think it's easy to watch the guy who scores 100 points in junior and goes to like all the big events. The Klinka 18s, World Junior, scores a bunch there and say, oh, he's going to be a great

player. Like, yeah, yeah, thanks for the insight on that one. But it's the ones where you're not so sure where there's more debate, whether it is Ryan McDonough, whether is Braden Point where there's a size skating question or McDonough in the offense question. You're like, I think he's going to get to the yay point. And they do that that's the tougher parts. I sometimes wonder, too, like, you know, does a player have to be making the assist, scoring the goal to be offensive or the helping offense? Like, you know, you look at the New York Islanders are going to game seven. of the semifinals right now.

They're two top defensemen or Ryan Pullick and Adam Pelick. Neither of them score a whole lot of points. But I think I would argue that they help the New York Islanders offensively because they make sure they have the puck more. They get it out of the zone quick. Max, I'm 100% on board with you. And, you know, if you can't get the puck out of your defensive zone, I don't care how many great offensive players you have.

You're not going to have success. You can't. It's impossible. So you need those elements. You need somebody that can shut down the play, get the puck and get it moving into the direction of the opposing team's net. So those are really valuable aspects to that. And you know, you have to really keep that in mind, you know, that there's,

you're looking at defense, but not everybody, very few are number one. Sure. There's not very many top pairs. There's more in that second pairing. And guys that you think are going to be second pairs, a lot of times end up in your bottom pair. So, you know, trying to work that whole projection area and say, hey, we value this and that. Corey, you watch Eric Chernack play at a young age. Yep, that was a big fan.

He did a lot of things for a Slovakia team that relied on him to do a lot of things. It did mean that he had the high-end capability to do it, but he was asked to do those things. And he did him with the same level of competitiveness and enthusiasm you see now. But, you know, my projection was he was going to be a really good effective second pair of defense because he was rugged, he was competitive, he was territorial. But I didn't think he'd put up big offensive numbers. And I think that what you see in Eric Chernik right now, like that's one of the ones where I go, I think I was spot on in my evaluation of him.

But you can also understand when you're watching them in all these situations, right, why somebody might say, well, I think he's got more offensive. or I think he'll produce more offense. And I think that that's another area that when you're evaluating, you've got to keep in mind. Yeah, Cherneck was one of the toughest evaluations for me over the course of the last couple of years. Because when I watched him in the draft eligible, I was really high on him. I had him right as a first round pick. I saw the physical things that you mentioned.

But as you might recall, when he played for those Slovakian teams, he was often like, you know, the main power play guy for them. I thought, I saw he saw at size. I saw a good feat. I saw, I saw good flashes of skills. I'm like, oh, this is a really, really good player. And I put him in the first round. He goes in the second round. And then, as you might recall, he goes to the OHL right after,

and he produces zero offense, like zero. And you can do, you know, the statistical analysis of guys who forgot what it was. I think it was like 15 points, maybe 20 points. Regardless, drafted defensemen who scored that level of points in the OHA after their draft. Historically, never play in the league. that there's chances are so low. So I remember watching in there like, oh, God, you know, I got that one wrong. Like, like, you know, overrated some guy playing in Slovakia.

And then, of course, he turns pro hearing like, you know, great things about him as a rookie pro. And now obviously he's a great NHL player. And I think, you know, those are some of the dynamics of player evaluation. Henrik Borsham is another one where I was way too low and then I got way too high. And it could be, there are definitely a challenge. challenges when it comes to doing this. And you know, you talk about Eric Cherenek, this is an example, right? But, you know, and I don't know how you feel about this core.

I don't think we've ever had the discussion. We talk about first round picks. Do you know what I consider a first round draft pick? Anybody selected between 20 and 40? Because I think, how many times, Max, Gore, you've heard it forever. Oh, we had them rated way higher. Everybody has them rated way higher. And that's why, like, I think a team picking a guy at 36.

If they had the 22 pick, they would have picked the same guy at 22. And that's why I use that 20 player band. And it might go 20 to 44 now with 32 teams. But that's what I consider a first round draft pick. I know it's semantics. But so, Corey, when you say that you had a rate it, I'm also, I try to use that band as an allowance for where players fit on the sliding scale of projection and selection. Right.

I don't know how you guys did it when you were with the teams, but I mean, when I talk to teams right now who are in how they make their list, a lot of them say they'll have a top grouping. Sometimes it'll be 35 deep. Sometimes it'll be 40 deep. Sometimes it'll be 50 deep. But yes, it's usually not 31 or 32. Usually it's somewhere between 38 to 50.

Usually my top group for this year was about 38, 39 deep, something like that. So roughly right around where you were saying. And like that, it usually ends up being that top. I mean, I'm going to identify all the top tier players. I'm presuming the 40 guys I identified 10, 15, maybe even 20 of them won't be good players. But I think I've identified the top tier. And that's usually roughly the right number in terms of how many good players come out in average drafts. It's about 40 players.

Yeah. All right. So the next guy I wanted to ask the both of you about is Fidoors Fetchkov. And Craig, I think you've got him, or at least you had him in your last list. I don't know where he'll be on the new one coming out, right around 10, which I believe is a little ahead of where. Kent Johnson and Mason McTavish where, Cor, I think you have him in the mid-20s. What do both of you see in Svechkov?

Obviously, I respect a lot of things about Svechkov. You don't have a guy in mid-20s without really liking the player. I think he's highly skilled. I think he's highly competitive. I think he has great hockey sense. At the U-18 World Championships, he was the number one center for Russia. A team that deservedly went to the gold medal game, I thought they were definitely the second-best team at that tournament.

And anytime you're the number one center on the second-best team, it means you're probably doing a lot of things really well. I thought he was impressive versus men. I thought versus juniors. He wasn't quite as good this season with his club, but he was still a really good player. I see a guy, I think, with just okay skating. You know, I think that's probably the main hindrance there

where I think he's probably more of a third-line center, maybe kind of like what Craig said before, maybe two in the best case, and third-line centers are really valuable. Again, to these debates a lot with fans, but a lot of teams think third-line centers are first-round picks because third-line centers are not very easy.

defined and they would be second-line wingers if you if you if you move him up a lineup but that's kind of where I stand with Svetchkov I think there's a lot I think there's a lot of talent there I'm not convinced it's like elite elite elite skill or skating but I think there's enough there that I think he's going to be you know a useful middle six center so so there so there's a broad not a broad but there's a there's a range now a player and I'm gonna I'm gonna pick up on Corey says he's got great hockey sets like I think great hockey sense translates into being able to be successful in the NHL. I think he knows how to play with really skilled players.

I think he's an outstanding two-way sentiment. I think he's competitive, all hallmarks. So again, the other thing I look at, if I'm going to put him in a skating competition, yeah, maybe he's not going to win it. But the game in the NHL is about pace and being able to do things quickly. Now, Max, I'm going to surprise you here. I think I'm going to surprise you. You know who my comparable type is for Spetchkoff?

Not off the top of my head, I don't. Pavel Datsu. I think that type, I'm not, hey, Pavel Datsuk was a great player. Okay, don't get wrong. I think Spetschkoff has the same approach to the game. Defensively, offensively, play with good players, do everything you need. And I think once he matures, I think. he's got a potential to be a player that can have a real significant impact.

My projection is real high on him, real high. Yeah, and I guess that's kind of where I would have, we have some disagreed on that. And just from what I've seen over the last two years, I haven't seen like the kind of thing from offense that I would want from him to elevate him to that level of the draft. But if you're talking about guys who can be great two-way centers, then I would, I agree. I think that he has a lot of those components. You saw how he played defensively the U-18s and versus men and the hockey sense and enough skill to go with that. I definitely would agree with all those components.

It just kind of like I said, I think the skating is just not great, and I think the skill is not elite enough for me to elevate him into that top tier. But to Craig's point by playing with great players, I mean, I think the two of the best players at that U18 world were the underage wingerers, Ivan Miro Nishenko and Danila Yurov and Svechkov and those two guys did a lot of really good things throughout that tournament. And they were, you know, outside of the Canadian team, they were probably the most dangerous line at the tournament. Yeah.

Oh, and I will say, I do agree. I think Hockey Sense can be a big equalizer in questions of like skating. I mean, it is the thing that I would really want to make sure, along with a little bit of physicality, if you're not going to be able to separate with your feet, you know, you want a player who's going to think the game well and be able to think a step ahead. Yeah, I agree with that, Max.

You know, I always say, you know, you want to create separation. and what I call, like, you know, keeping opponents at arm's length. So some players are going to do it with their skating ability. Some players are going to do it with their brain. Like if I go back to the Eric Stahl goal on game four or game five, the setup by Nick Suzuki, Nick Suzuki comes down the wing. He pulls a top defenseman, Alex Petrangelo, right into his web. where and not only him but and then opens up the whole ice and Eric Stahl has has that type of

being able to keep people at arm's length creates stuff. Nick Suzuki's not going to do it with flat out speed like Connor McDavid, but he's going to do it with his brain. Yeah, no, I agree that I think, you know, I want Nick Suzuki. I just because I think he's, I think he's an elite skill IQ guy. Like that's, you know, yeah. All right. All right.

All right. All right. All right. the both of you about is Zach Leroux. Craig, I think you had him in the top 10, I think, eight, Corey, 28. What do both you see in Zach Leroux? I'll start with, I see Brad Marshaun. That same approach to the game.

He's edgy, he's skilled, he keeps people on their toes. He crosses the line and, you know, you pay a price for that. But like the way he plays the game, honestly, I watch Brad Marshan play. and Brad was a little bit smaller and obviously really developed into the player that he is now. We're talking about an elite elite NHL player. I'm talking about that type of player. And that might be one of my preferences in that type.

I find those players unique. I find them even more unique in today's game. So, you know, for me to push him a little bit higher, I'm comfortable with it. But I also recognize that I like that type of player. Yeah, and I don't disagree that he has, I think he leads skill. I think if you ask me to rank the most purely skilled players in the draft, he's at least top 10, if not top 5, I think.

I don't disagree as well that his physicality is extremely impressive. I think once he gets inside the offensive zone, you know, he can be really impactful in numerous ways. For me, I think kind of the same thing we just had about the previous player. I think his skating, especially for a guy with that side, concerns me a little bit for the top 10. I also, I thought, you know, coming out of his season in Moncton, I probably had him, you know, as a guy who you looked at it with, you know,

extremely highly. I thought his season in Halifax was pretty good. I don't think it was amazing. I think there was definitely some waves, obviously the multiple suspensions. And I think when he was on the ice, he had some good stretches and not some not so good stretches, so that may be more concerned. But, you know, if there's some, he's definitely. definitely a unique player in this draft.

There aren't a lot of guys, not as in this draft, but in a lot of drafts where you find, but they have that elite skill and elite physicality. That is a rather rare thing. So I've definitely talked to some scouts as well in the NHL who think really highly of this player, some not as much, but definitely some who think this guy is the best prospect in the queue this season.

So I definitely can see what Craig sees there. So, Corey, would you say it would be fair to say that and with respect to ranking range that he might be one of the most polarizing players? Yeah, I mean, there's a couple of them. He would probably be one. Leasell would probably be one. You know, so there's probably a couple of. Coolman's, yeah, to some extent, Cheka to some extent.

But I would probably say, you know, those guys, you know, where, you know, maybe COSA also to some extent. but I think I would probably say Leru among teams I've talked to would definitely be, I'd say Leru and Liesel among the teams I talked to are probably two of the more polarizing players. Yeah, I know and that's why I wanted to ask you because like a lot of the questions I've had

are like, it's like, yeah, I like him or really? Like, you know, you really like them that much and you know, you just get a sense of like, you know, how teams evaluate players and individuals and people who I have great respect for their opinions asking you questions on one side of the scale and the other. So that's why I asked the question. And, you know, I think that for me, he's become a fascinating player in this year's draft

because it wouldn't surprise me if he went, you know, in the top half of the draft. It wouldn't surprise me, he went in the second half of the first round. It wouldn't surprise me at all. What was surprising he went in the second round? Yeah, what? That would surprise me a lot. But I guess what I would say to you, Corey, is that I could understand it. And I think there's a difference between being surprised and understanding it.

One guy that Mack kind of mentioned there that I also wanted to get your opinion on, because I remember when we watched the U17 challenge a year and a half ago and the World Junior Ray challenged, I remember talking to you about course and cooliments. And I remember, you know, you were a really, really big. fan of him and I remember watching him, watching him. Initially, I was like, I don't see it, like, just big and conscaged and doesn't really do anything else. Like, that was kind of my first impression. And it kind of, since then, I've kind of gone back and watched more of him, and I've, you know, kind of grown more fun on this player to put him in the top 15

part of my list. And I was actually kind of surprised when I saw your list and you lowered him like, geez, now I'm hired him than Craig. How did that happen? I don't think we're that far apart, though, are we? I don't think we're that far apart. I have them 13 right now. I don't know where you're ahead of it. Yeah, I, geez, I want to say some, I think I had them in the teens. Yeah, I can tell you, I don't have to guess at this. Why do I have to guess at this? I can tell you exactly where I had them. I had Corson at, at 18. Yeah, and I didn't think we were that far apart. I just thought that was kind of funny how that, how that ended up.

I remember the same thing with, we did the same thing that two years ago when we were 17 challenge with Jarvis. You were telling me how good Seth Jarvis was, and I was like, I just small guy, not that dynamic. I don't really see it. And then I think by the time the draft was there, I think I had him above you on your list. And, you know, it's, you know, as kind of would be, a theme of this conversation has been that the player evaluation is extremely fluid. Well, and that's what it is. And, you know, it's interesting for me in a business, I've watched Corson for a long time. And you become high on them. And you become high on. And you become high on certain players.

We talked about Ratu. You also, Max, you start out watching players younger. Your player pool is smaller. So you're evaluating them within that player pool. You're evaluating them what you think your potential is. But then all these other players start to come into the pool. And so now you're trying to compare, okay, is this guy better than that guy? How much better?

So with Corson, having watched him for so long, And I don't know about you, Corey, because we didn't talk about it. But, you know, having watched him, I watched him a little bit of books this year. And it was a stop and start, pause year for those players in all areas, not just with games, but in their training. But I thought as the tournament went on at the U-18 tournament that he just got better and better and more comfortable. And one of the things that I thought about is, you know, again, he becomes a projection again. how much better can he be? Like, you know, he's going to Wisconsin.

I think Marco Siki does a great job with defensemen at Wisconsin. And so, you know, how much does that come into the projection, right? And those types of things. So when I watch course and play, you know, you have these positive views early on. Then you kind of go, you measured against other things. But I think Corey, as when you see the final. final list, I might be closer to where you're at than where I'm at now. Yeah, and I think kind of the point you just made there about, I think he isn't one of the

players, as many players are, that was really tough to evaluate because of limited games. You know, it's not just a Koolman's thing. That's a thing that's a theme throughout this draft. You know, I talked to a bunch of people who watched his Brooks games and some say positive things, some say negative things. But at the end of the day, it was like eight games total. and it wouldn't be the 40 or 50 or whatever he would have played if he would have done the full run with the Holinka,

then the first half, and then the World Junior Ray Challenge, and then the second half, and then the U18 World's, you know, he didn't have the tip of, you know, maybe a top prospect game in there.

You know, it's only whatever it was, like five, seven, ten games, you know, and you would have had a lot more viewing, a lot more opportunities for him. There should display the attributes. You know, the debates, I think, are all, does he have hockey stands?

Does he defend well enough, you know, and you can kind of isolate examples in those five games. and I'm not saying I have the right answers or not. Maybe I'm too high on him. Maybe some other scouts who don't like him as much are right. Maybe the ones who are really high on him are right. But because he didn't play at all this season, it's like a lot of players, particularly the Ontario players, it's a real big challenge to evaluate him.

Yeah, no, I agree with you. Totally agree. All right, that is fantastic. Craig, you have been exceptionally generous with your time. Thank you so much. for doing this. We really appreciate you. I know our audience does too. I can tell you this. The amount of time that I'm ready to spend with you guys is a reflection on the quality of YouTube. So always my pleasure. Well, that's very kind of you to say. We really appreciate you doing

this. Thank you, Craig. This was an excellent discussion. Thanks. All right. Thank you again to Craig Button for joining us. I really enjoyed that interview. And I want to shift things now a little bit to a story that Corey, you released on Thursday. Your first mock draft of the summer. Always, always fun. Always one of my favorite reads to start to see kind of what you're hearing out there. And a few things that kind of stood out to me. I wanted to start with the goalies. You land them here at 10 and 11 to Ottawa and Chicago. The other landing spot you mentioned in here, specifically for Walsett is Detroit at 6. So obviously you think they probably go in this top 12-ish range. But humor me for a minute here. You did bring up Mad

Sogard, Ottawa prospect in the article, great year in Belleville, 917, save percentage in seven games at age 20. Let's say Ottawa passes on a goalie here, and Detroit doesn't take the goalie either. Do you have a sense for the floor of these two goalies, Esper Wollstead and Sebastian Costa? Because I look at this, and once you get past Ottawa, all of a sudden you're looking at Calgary, who just signed a long-term deal with Jacob Markstrom, Philly with Carter Hart, Dallas is Jake Ottinger. The Rangers have Igor Shesterkin. So if one of these goalies, slides past that Ottawa-Chicago range, what is kind of the latest realistic range they could slide into?

Yeah, I think a lot of the ones you identified are ones where I would struggle to see a goalie go. I could see the Blues of 17. I think some people I talked to around the league think Edmonton at 20 could be a potential floor for one of those guys. Obviously, Nashville at 19 is not going to happen after using a high pick on Ascarov last season. And then the obvious issue is, you know, the unknown is whether a team makes a move to go get a goalie in the top 20, if they see one of Walsett or Costa getting out of that range.

All right. I really like the point you made with Seattle. You projected them to take Matthew Baneers. And I like the point you made about how Seattle is going to have the hardest time in the expansion draft coming away with high-level centers, right? I had made the point, I think, in a previous episode about the Carolina track record with Ron Francis and how there was a lot of top draft. assets used on the blue line, could he do the same thing in Seattle? But when you make that point, you are right. Like, looking at our staff projections of the expansion draft,

some of the defensemen that Seattle could come out of that with, Matt Dumbah, Ryan Graves, Jake Bean, Calfoot, Vince Dunn. You get three or four of those guys, let alone all five. You can be in a really good spot on defense, and that really does kind of free up this resource with the second pick to get a top six center. Yeah, and obviously you still want to take the best player available, but you kind of look at the expansion draft.

what our writers think are going to be the expansion draft options, and the center options are, quite frankly, rather bleak. And, you know, Vegas's center options are also kind of bleak. And I still wouldn't call them an exceptional team at center, but they're an elite NHL team.

And I think they've kind of generated interesting discussion around the league on whether you can win without an elite center. And we'll see what they do tonight. Obviously, we're recording this before game six. But, yeah, I think that is definitely interesting variable with Seattle. I still think the best player available, and I think a lot of teams around the league think that Beniers is definitely in the mix to be the best player available at number two.

But that is an interesting – I guess I keep saying the best player available over and over again, but I just – just from talking to hockey people for a very long time, I have suspicions that they're going to take a senator to defense minute too, just because it's going to be the primary building block of the organization. organization to kind of start this expansion franchise. And I love Dylan Genther. I love William Eklund. But I suspect they're going to want to have a guy like Benyers in there at two. I don't think he plays next season. But in two or three years, he's a guy you can plug into your top nine, probably your top six.

And you have that part of your death chart taking care of for a very long time. Yeah, and it's not, you know, it's just you don't know when the next chance you're going to get to add a center prospect of Baneers' caliber. Like, like you can think that you're going to be in the top four or five next year in a draft that looks like it might have a couple really good centers in it. But you just don't know. Vegas certainly hasn't picked in this range ever again since their first draft. Right. And mind you, the second center they picked in that draft was probably better than the first center they picked in Nick Suzuki. And I suspect it's possible Seattle will add some extra first round picks here.

year. I thought wouldn't be shocked, you know, if they don't, but I would expect that they will have more than one first round pick by the time. This is all said and done with the expansion draft process. But, but yeah, no, it's a great point. You know, I think the expansion draft rules, well, you know, based on Dom's projections at the athletic, you know, it seems like they'll be a fairly competitive team, not overly competitive, but like they probably won't be a bottom feeder to start off right away. And they may not have a chance to pick, high. high and next year's draft. And, you know, I have my reservations on trying to project a draft a year out, even though we will have a 22 list up at some point here in the coming weeks. And just my cursory look at next year's draft, I'm not convinced. There's, you know, there's definitely some pretty good centers. Obviously, Shane Wright is, you know, right at the top of the list and how the rest of those, that top group fills out, whether guys like, say, Lambert or Savoy are going to be an HL centers

There's not going to be a debate. I definitely can talk to some people around the league who can already start kind of poking holes in their games. But I think that your point stands in that regard. Another team, you mentioned the possibility Seattle having multiple first-arm picks. Another team that I, you know, we talked on our last show about the possibility of a Jack Eichl trade. There are multiple teams in this top 10 who seem to be mentioned around that possibility of an Eichael trade. And I guess I wanted to ask you, how does this mock change if you swap in a second Buffalo Sabres pick? with Owen power already in tow at number three to Anaheim, number eight to L.A.

Is it a slam dunk that's a four word if you do that? I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk. It's a forward, but I think you're starting to look at probably being a decent, you know, it's not a decent to a strong likelihood. I think their team is such and such, you know, not great shape that I think you, they will still, if there's a defenseman that they have ranked really, really highly, I'd imagine they would still go with that guy. But if it was like three, like, Anaheim, for example,

think you're talking about, you know, guys like Genther, guys like Eklund, guys like Kent Johnson and McTavish as more realistic mock draft projections. I think there's, you know, that's kind of the tough part of doing mock drafts or, you know, what you're trying to do one, not just as like a fun exercise, but trying to do your best attempt, usually you fail, but your best attempt to project out the first round is there are a lot of variables and there are a lot of, you know, there's a lot of things that can make the whole thing fall apart. You know, you look at, I look a couple of points in this draft.

I think New Jersey is, you know, a point where things could kind of fall apart. I think Ottawa is one where things can kind of fall apart in your mock draft projection. If one of the top nine teams, such as say, Detroit takes a goalie, I think things could fall apart a little bit. So there's definitely a lot of variables when you're trying to do a mock draft. You mentioned Detroit, you have them taking Mason McTavish in this one at six. That's a player you also mentioned the pick before to Columbus, a team that has been very unspoken about their desire to have centers.

But also as early as number three to Anaheim. So I know you mock him at 6 to Detroit. What's your confidence level that he goes somewhere in this top 6 range? I think, you know, fairly confident. I think kind of what you said, I'm not sure he gets to 6. So that's, I think, and I think, you know, he's obviously been a guy who extremely benefited from his U-18 World Championship and his ability

and now he might go top six maybe he does it maybe he goes a little bit before that closer to kind of where I have him on my list which I think is I think I'm in like a nine or nine I think nine or ten up yeah I'd have a problem off on my head but yeah I would say right now I think he is going in the top six and I would probably if you ask me to put it over under I would probably

you know I would say my bet is six because that's where he is on my mock draft, but if you kind of squeeze me, I would say on the over right now, based on where his hype is right now. Over as in earlier. Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry. Yeah. It's an earlier than six.

Yeah. And then last thing, I noticed Kent Johnson at nine, which, you know, certainly you make the point, there's a, there's kind of a consensus group of nine top skaters, Vancouver's picking nine. They're probably just getting who's ever left on the board of that group. But it stood out to me because Johnson's a guy that you do kind of wonder if there's an possibility for an Elias Pedersen, in fact, when you talk about the high skill level that he has and what Vancouver was able to do with Elias Pedersen, I almost wonder, is this kind of a perfect

fit landing spot for Kent Johnson? Yeah, I mean, and I think there's a debate right now on whether he is a center or a wing, but I think if he ended up becoming a Vancouver Canuck, I don't think that would be much of a debate because they have two tremendous centers in Bo Horvind and Elias Pedersen. So you can easily envision him on the wing of one of those two senders and being part of a really dynamic line. And we'll see what happens with Besser there in Vancouver, obviously, but that starts to become, you know, with him and Colson, now you start having some real, you know, options with your forward lines, your power play. And it's all that would be a lot of talent in that forward group. And definitely kind of what you said, you know, I think there's been a consensus,

nine skaters that have emerged, and I think Vancouver will get whichever one of those guys are remaining, presuming that a goal he doesn't go in the top nine, which I'm not confident in saying that that will not happen. I love the fit for Johnson. He's a North Vancouver kid. That'd be a heck of a story and a heck of a fit for him to step right into, right out of the draft, I think. Yeah, no, I agree.

And, I mean, I just, you know, I think a lot of, you know, I get a lot of messages from people who live in British Columbia and watch them in the BCHL. and there would definitely be a lot of interest in that selection of that ended up being the case. Yeah, absolutely. All right, it's a great story. I think everyone should make sure they get onto theathletic.com. Check out Corey's most recent mock draft. Really, just get in now because there's going to be a whole other month of great stuff coming from Corey, from Scott Wheeler.

Scott dropped his draft board this past week as well. It's the perfect time to get on board with the athletic, and I hope you will. No mailbag this week, but get your questions ready. for next week's episode, and thank you for listening to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Please follow us on your favorite podcast platform and leave a rating and review if you're enjoying the show. That really helps us out.

I also wanted to encourage everybody to make sure they're listening the other days of the athletic hockey show. Sean Gentile and Craig Cussons have been running the Tuesday episode, The Americans, two of my favorite people and one of my must listen podcast days every week. They're going to keep you informed. They're going to keep you entertained. I am also told they're now taking challenges for words that they cannot say on the show. They've already outlawed the phrase Galaxy Brained. So make sure you not only listen

to that show, but jump into their comment section. Give them some new off-limits words, because I kind of want to see how much we can dwindle down the available vocabulary for them by the end here. So that's it for us today. Annual subscriptions to the athletic, $3.99 a month when you visit theathletic.com slash hockey show. And again, you're going to want to get on that now so you can keep up with all of Corey and Scott Wheeler's draft coverage in the next month. We'll talk to you soon.