The Athletic Hockey Show - Dissecting Corey Pronman's under 23 NHL player rankings

Episode Date: August 28, 2023

On this week's edition of The Prospect Series, Max Bultman and Corey Pronman are joined by Flo Hockey's Chris Peters and the Athletic's Scott Wheeler. Chris and Scott take Corey to task with his rankings of the top players under 23 in the NHL, as our resident prospect expert Corey defends his selections. Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshowSubscribe to The Athletic Hockey Show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowYou’ll be amazed at what you can do with Grammarly. Go to grammarly.com/GO to download for FREE today.Head to factormeals.com/nhlshow50 and use code nhlshow50 to get 50% off. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Hey, everybody, Max Boltman here alongside Corey Pranman for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show's prospect series. We are going to be joined today by Chris Peters of Flow Hockey and by our colleague here at the Athletic Scott Wheeler to dissect Corey's under 23 list. Last week we went through all of the team pipeline rankings. Today we're going to really dig into Corey's individual player list. So we brought in two people who love to take him to task. That's going to be coming up in segment two. But first, Corey, I wanted to go over a couple of things with you,

maybe slightly less combatively that then will be in the second segment of our show. But I wanted to start right at the very top because your number one under 23 player is a guy who has yet to take a step on NHL ice. Right. And that is Codin Bardard. And he is ranked directly over, as you mentioned, you know, to, legitimate NHL players

NHL stars and Jack Hughes and Tim Stutzler and that was an interesting conversation that would be happening with the NHL personnel during Badar's draft

year as he became the consensus number one and ran away with it as the season progressed is you know well you know where would he slot for you among the very best

young players in the NHL we did articles comparing him the reason first overall picks but yeah I've talked to NHL people in the league who agree this opinion that they would take him over some of the very best players in the league,

or at least take him for the duration of his career over the duration of those players' careers. And some people are less enthusiastic about that opinion. You know, you have a guy like, say, Jack Hughes, who is an MVP candidate and Tim Stutzel, who I think is trending towards being an MVP candidate. You know, I think if Ottawa were to make the playoff his upcoming season, I think Stozel has to have that kind of year. And I don't think it's unreasonable to think he could have that kind of year. year and guide them to the playoffs.

But with Bedard, you know, you compare, you start thinking about, okay, well, what did I think of Jack Hughes at Bedard's age? What did I think of Stuzel at Bedard's age? And I'm like, oh, man, there's a pretty significant gap there. Not massive, particularly when it comes to Hughes, but there's a gap. And in terms of the ability, and you're thinking, yes, he hasn't played an HL game yet, and there's risk in terms of whether the game's going to translate or not. But if it does, and I mean, he's done nothing but show over, he's.

his time as an amateur that he can have success and keep playing up levels and with that issue. I mean, this guy has a chance to be a really special hockey player. It doesn't have the skating that those two have, but I mean, his offensive touch and skill and goal scoring ability is pretty special. So it would be, I don't think this is kind of like a fantasy discussion. This would never, I don't think New Jersey or Ottawa would ever really entertain, would we ever have these discussions with Chicago, but I thought it was a very interesting way

to frame the beginning parts of this list. It's interesting. So last week when we talked about Bedard and kind of the reasonable expectations for him, I want to say your ballpark for him, projection was 55 points in season one. And that really highlights that this is not a ranking that says who's going to be the best players under 23 this season.

This is very much a projection, absolutely. Yeah, it's about their entire one, who I think is going to have to. the best career. And, yeah, no, I mean, obviously, I would not take Cedardard over Hughes next season, given what Hughes just did last year. Yeah, absolutely.

There's a few interesting things here that I want to touch up with you. I don't want to scoop Chris and Scott too much here. But Dylan Cousins is another guy I wanted to bring up. He slots in here at number six, which he is a tremendous player. But coming out at number six is really high. And I think it really shows that he had a great season last year and the strides he's taken. And what was it that motivated you to put him at number six?

And just for context, two is Jack Hughes, three, Tim Stutzler, four, Adam Fantilli, five, Matvei Michkov. So a few guys from this last draft class. But after that, it's Dylan Cousins next guy up. Well, I think with Cousins, you always were appealed to the physical tools. He was six three, right shot center, who skated very well, a highly competitive player. And you thought, yeah, he has skill. He has, you know, good goal-swearing ability. but is the offense in his game really ever going to be elite, elite?

And I think he still needs to somewhat prove that, but 30 goals last year, nearly touched 70 points, ran the flank on the first power play at times there in Buffalo while providing the really strong two-way play with the size skating and compete. And I just look at this player and think, well, why shouldn't he be at the very top of the list? Like, what's wrong with him? What has he not proven?

And I mean, you know, his track record in general is very strong. in terms of high-level play, in terms of scoring, and you add all those athletic traits and the work ethic at his game. And I don't know, he looks like a premier young center in the league to me, a guy who I think would project to be the first line center on a lot of teams, maybe not on the same team that has Tage Thompson, but I think this is, this looks like a team in Buffalo that between Thompson and cousins and Rasmus Daly and Owen Power.

I mean, I think they have absolute studs at, you know, multiple studs, that is, at the two most important positions. And I just want to say when you go to six through eight, the grouping is cousins, baneers, Zegras, they're all on a tier. And I think the order does make a lot of sense. You look at cousins and baneers, cousins are probably a little bit more offensive projection. You look at cousins versus Zegris, cousins, the more well-rounded player. So I think you can see kind of how you got there with that outline. Yeah, and when I sent this list around to scouts, think those three players, everybody kind of felt like they belonged together, but they weren't

100% sure on the order. Some would take baneers over cousins. Some prefer cousins over baneers. It's interesting. I think most thought there was a distinction between those two in Zegras. But I think most felt like those three did belong in a group together. Part of that with Zegris, maybe there is a little bit of uncertainty positionally, especially now that Leo Carlson enters the fold, we talked about this and we talked about anaheim on if he's a center or a wing going forward. And I think that that's a natural kind of lead into the big wingerers on this list. We talk about Motvei Mitchkov all the way up at 5.

But Colt Cawfield at 11 is ahead of some big names on this list. And those two, as well as Matt Boldy, are really disrupting and exclusively centers in D top 15. Yeah. And I think in order to, I mean, we talk about this in the draft too, I think in order to have a winger enter the premium discussion where you have those high-end centers and defensemen at the top of the draft,

how does a winger enter the discussion? like say Mitch Cobdig or say, you know, Uriest Lovsky did the previous year, they have to have some special traits and there has to be something unique about them where you think, okay, well, I can't find this on the open market that easily and I think with Mitch Cobb, it's I don't think you

find his skill in hockey sense that easily. You kind of saw it with like what, you know, how much Artemey Panera changed the Rangers when he goes there, for example, like that kind of skill in hockey sense is not easy to find. And with Cole Coffield, it's the goal-scoring ability. You know, it reminds me of say when the Klinia Kovilchuk hit the free agent market,

different kind of players a little bit. But like, you know, when those kind of wingers are available, they can change the, the dynamic of a team a lot. And boldly just the size and the high-end skill combination. Also not so easy to find. So that's why I felt like those three were special wingers in that day and allows them to be in that same conversation. Although, like I said, when I sent this list around NHL people,

that was always the pushbacker. Like, oh, man, like, Owen Power is a really special defenseman or, you know, Mason McTavish is a really special centers. Like, I'm not sure I could take them over a wink. But I think those are all plopal discussions. And you look at say what Cockfield just got paid. Obviously, he's being paid now like a premium forward. Same thing with Boldy. And those three are the only wingers other than Yereoslovsky, a 22 first overall pick in the top 25. So they're certainly seeing the positional premium play out there. You mentioned, one of the special defensemen here. And one of the things that jumped off the page to me right away is

Moritz cider and Owen Power, number 12 and 13, I think they belong together. So I agree with that. I was surprised to see you make a distinction and put Luke Hughes at number nine in a half tier above them on the bubble of the NHL All-Star tier and the elite tier. Yeah, and obviously, this is one of the tough part about making this type of ranking is I have to distinguish between guys who have little to know NHL games against guys who are established NHL players.

We just talked about this with the BADAR section earlier. It's like, okay, well, how do you make that distinction? And obviously, you know, a big part of my job is projection. And when I, you know, this, you know, when we're talking about players in the draft, I'm projecting into the NHL, say this is what kind of impact I think this player could have in the NHL. And if I actually do mean what I say, I have to actually kind of, you know, live up of what I start talking about them relative to established in NHL players.

Like, well, I think this guy is that good. I think this guy could be this good. It's like, well, then that's more valuable. And with Luke, you know, I see a player with absolutely outstanding skating ability. I think he's shown legitimate offense at the college level, at the international level between the world juniors and the world championships. This is a guy with, you know, with strong intangibles, you know, he's the captain of the USA World Junior team.

I don't think the offense is elite like his brothers, but I think it's very good. And I think the athletic tools are just off the charts. And I think from what I've seen in this guy over the last few years, it's hard not to watch him and not see a guy who can be a really impactful NHL offenseman. I think you saw that towards the end of his little stint there in the NHL with the devils in the playoffs,

just the kind of impact the 19-year-old could have for them. And I think he'll only get better as time goes on. I realize I'm sticking my neck out. on him. And I realize I've kind of developed a reputation for being a guy who may be a little bit high on the player over the years. I've gotten a few trips from that from from readers and frankly, people in the league. But like I said, I don't know. I feel like this guy's pretty dynamic. And I would bet on him to be a really successful NHL player.

If there's a guy in the top 25 who I think fans will be less familiar with, most of these names in the top 25 or top 10 picks who are panning out as expected. Alexander Nikitian, I think, belongs in the similar conversation that we're having on Luke Hughes, is what do you do with the guy who, and we haven't even seen Nikitian in North America, but we have seen him in Russia, and we have seen him be very good in Russia. He checks in at number 23 for you and the bubble NHL All-Star top of the lineup tier. Context, that's the same tier as David Yurecich, who was a top 10 pick in last year's draft. How did you arrive at this with Nikitian? What should people know about this player. I mean, it's hard. It was hard not to watch him last year with Skah and not just be

blown away by him. You know, I think what he let all the NHL defensemen in scoring as a 21-year-old you add the fact that he's six-four and he skates well and he's, you know, sometimes it looks like a killer physically, be quite honest, but you know, very competitive, very physical. I mean, yeah, I mean, you think of, I don't think it's a perfect cop, but you think of, say, Kianne Miller in the NHL. And I don't think it's unreasonable to say, not that this guy could be Kandre Miller. I think he, like, if he was in the

NHL tomorrow, I think he's looking like that in the first week. That's what I kind of think when I watch this guy in the KHL. Doesn't mean it's for sure going to happen. But I think this guy, based on what he's shown at the second best league in the world, I think

he is trending towards having a highly successful NHL career. Once he does eventually sign, with Carolina. And the other thing I think is interesting is there's still some obviously projection that happens even when these guys do arrive, right? And I think that's probably what's coming into play. Anton Lindell, Wyatt Johnson, two of the best young centers in the league, certainly, not yet as productive, I would say, as some of the players that they are around, but two well-rounded players, two really young players, they both crack your top 22.

Right. And just quite you're saying for it. There was just prediction with the Keish and, you know, you have projected Kuznetsov, and you project Tarasanko, you project Kaprasovin, but I think the evidence is there that I think he'll be really good. Yeah, but in terms of Lundell and Johnston both have some similarities in that they're both like average side centers, below average

skaters, I would argue, but they're just so they are both so intelligent and competitive that they've been able to make a real dent on very good teams. I mean, I think Lendell was not one of the top three or four reasons, but he played a pretty significant role on that team to win to the Stanley Cup final there in Florida.

And I think between him and Johnston, I think, you know, Florida and Dallas fans can only be ecstatic of what they've seen so far. I don't know if either never going to be elite offensively, maybe Johnson more than one Dell. But I think they can be like really good two-way players for a very long time. One thing that I was thinking, I was trying to figure out who on this list has the best chance to ascend into this top nine or 10 or so over the next year. And the name that jumped out to me was Logan Cooley, who you have as the list.

the last player on the bubble of All Star and top of the lineup tier, 24th overall. But there is a little bit of rhyme here. There's a little bit of like a Jack Hughes light, Tim Stutzlow Light there. If those are two guys you have in the top three, his rookie year in the NHL, is he the guy who in the top 40 or so who you could see making the biggest climb or is it someone else? I think it's very possible based on what he does. He is very dynamic. And that was kind of especially we have Arizona and their farm system placement is, you know,

they have some really talented young players. I love Cooley, I love Cimishav, I love Danny Aboot. Like, Gentther's really good. But they now need some of these guys to actually translate that into NHL success. And if Cooley does in the NHL, even something even remotely close to what he did in college, then I think you can start having a really strong discussion by where he slots relative to guys, like say Zegris, for example. All right, good stuff, Corey.

That's your warm up. We're going to take a quick break here, and then we're going to bring in the big guns in and really turn the spotlight on. All right, we are back, and we welcome now to the show. Scott Wheeler, prospect writer from The Athletic and Chris Peters, prospect writer from Flohockey. You guys today are going to get the enviable task of bringing Corey's feet to the fire on some of the names on this list.

We went over kind of an overview. Some of the things that stood out to me, I was a bit more diplomatic than I think you need to be. You came in at the very end. you now get the chance to pick any nits you have or any major gripes you have with this list. And I will just turn the floor over to you right now. And we can start right here with Chris. Yeah, there will be gripes. Actually, you know, this is obviously a huge undertaking. We all know how hard it is to do these lists and how much there is. So there's the diplomacy.

And now it ends. And Corey, you know, so there was, as I looked through Corey's list, the for the first time, you know, the one thing that jumped out at me, and this is not going to surprise anybody, because I've always been high on them. But, you know, seeing Logan Cooley at 24, you know, especially behind guys like Slavkovsky, you're a check, even Wyatt Johnston, who I think, you know, has proven it at the NHL level. I just think we're looking at it. And Will Smith was another one that jumped out at me as like being ahead of Logan Cooley. Yes, he did have better numbers at the national team development program. But I think that Cooley is a little bit better in a number of ways, both in terms of his

skill and his, uh, his competitiveness and also his speed. Um, he's not more skilled. He's better skaters, he's more competitive. He's not more skilled. He's as if he's no worse than as skilled. And he might not have this. He does not have the same vision as as Will Smith. I will give you that. I think Will Smith has better overall hockey sense. But I think in terms of hand skills, shot, all those things, he is right there with him and is a better player at this point. And I think will be long term. He's also more competitive. And I think that that's a significant difference between the two.

But that was the one. I think Logan Cooley at 24, that seems very low to me. Certainly, I think it's at least 10 spots too low, if not more. and that's where I'm at on Cooley. And I think Scott may back me up on this one. Yeah, I'm in the same boat. There just felt to me like there were a few guys. I can understand the Will Smith argument.

They felt to me like the guys like Slavkovsky and White Johnson and Lundell. Those are players who, I mean, certainly in Lundell and Johnson's case, as you alluded to, they've proven it. They've sort of competed in the NHL and been good players on good teams. I think their ceilings, though, is quite likely, what, a very good second line center at best. And there's an outcome for a player like Lundell as a very good third line center. And in Cooley, I think they're expecting him in Arizona to be almost a slam dunk top of the lineup player. Like, that's what they need him to be.

That's what they believe he's going to be. And I think that's a belief that's held pretty widely around hockey, that this kid has a very good opportunity to be one of the better young players in the league. over the next few years. If I said that I'm 100% certain, which I'll never 100% certain, but if I was 100% certain, One Del is going to be Ryan O'Reilly. And I was 100% certain

that Wyatt Johnson was going to be David Crachey. Would you take those players over Cooley? No. Nope. No. Interesting. If Cooley's the dog there, if he's the guy,

if he's the driver in Arizona for the next decade, those players aren't going to be the guy. on their team. They aren't going to do it. What do we think Cooley? Who would be the NHL com for Cooley? I think Max said it earlier, Diet Jack Hughes. I mean, like, I think that he's, he's going to be a, you know, 80, 90 point guy on the regular. And, yeah, I mean, Hibelsky is a better skater. Yeah. Or a more competitive, more competitive Clayton Keller, I think you could, you could say too, but you get into these things where you're out,

you're adding a skill and it makes it tougher. I get Corey's point here on O'Reilly. because I think I'm taking O'Reilly over Keller by leaps and bounds. Well, over Keller for sure. Yeah. But so, like, but Keller, is he not a point per game player? Like, we're adding the compete trait. My comp for Kooli in his draft you was brilliant point. And that's, I still think that's the more now against one than Jack Hughes.

I don't think he's going to have Jack's offense. But I think he can have braided his offense. But so you would take, uh, I would take point over those guys too. I mean, I mean, I mean, I think, Krati would have a really content good. career. Yeah. I know he did. I know.

Yes. All, you know, we're talking about, you know, all, you know, Stanley Cup. Yeah. But the players type of thing. So it's, it's just more of what's your flavor essentially. And I think there's all those guys in the same grouping. And, you know, in terms of Johnson and Lendell versus him, that's a lot of, obviously, I think Kooley's more talented than those, too. It's more of, that's the tricky part where it's NHL proven players versus guys who would be

to play a game type of thing. Yeah. I don't. So I think that, so here's maybe the more interesting one. Let's do Slavkowski versus Kooley because it's the same draft class. Sure. You know, how has this debate changed from a year ago? So I know Scott's always had Cooley significantly ahead of Sleptowski.

I think Chris had him mildly ahead of Slavkowski, you know. But I think this is a tricky debate because Slavkowski played in the NHL last year, not in college. So let's say, you know, Chris, like why would this debate be much different from a year ago? then why do you think there's a major distinction there? I mean, you know, certainly Slavkovsky played in the NHL, but I think we probably could have seen similar results from Kooley. Just because you look at what he did at college, he had a historically, not quite historically good freshman season.

I mean, you know, like where he was a Hobie top three, you know, a high-producing player, got his team to the national championship game, you know, that gave us more fuel to the fire of Kooley being the more dynamic. dynamic, the more skill, the, you know, just that, that whole deal, that all showed up. Now, Slavkovsky, we had a shortened run, obviously, the injuries and everything else. And getting to the NHL is quicker. But I think if I'm looking at the ceiling between the two players, I see Cooley as a potential number one center.

I see, I see, I see Slavkovsky as a potential number one wing. I'm taking the number one center. And I do think that Cooley has that, in the way that Braden Point maybe didn't, or at least initially earlier in his career. He'll, I think that at times, point, was more of a complimentary player. Now he's obviously moved into a more primary player. I think Slavkovsky is going to stay in the more complimentary player realm, whereas Cooley is going to be a driver for his team, a star for his team.

Not that Slavkowski won't be a star, but I just think that the level of team impact that Cooley can have to me and over the long term of his career is going to be, higher than what Slavkovsky can bring. I also think that while it was a short in season, even if you take the injury out of it, some of the concerns that folks had about your ice Slavkovsky did reveal themselves in some of the struggles he had at the NHL level, i.e. how heavy he is out there, how fleet of foot he is getting to pucks and winning races, his ability to sort of play make off the wall. There were sort of minor concerns that people had heading into the draft, even as great as he was in his draft year, that were apparent really right

from the get-go for him in the NHO. So the argument I do get on Kui is, like, he was really good at the program, but he wasn't, I don't think, what I would call dominant, at least consistently. And then I think he maybe answered those very minor questions he had in his freshman year, where he was that player. And I, and I was reflected, I actually did elevate him in terms of, like, my projection, in terms of the tiers. He is elevated from where he was a year ago,

where I had Slavkovsky and right in that tier, and then I took right out, and I put a year a check in Cooley up a grade. So I do reflect that I have that his season was very impressive. But here, let's just say you were Montreal, for example. I know neither of you shed his opinion. Let's say you were in Montreal, and you did believe in your eyes Slavkovsky

is the best player in the draft. And the argument would have been a 6-4-winger, who skates really well for his size, has high-end skill, goal-scoring ability, has had really dynamic flashes. There's a lot of potential here. You know, from basically, basically, what do you play? 30 NHL games, 35 NHL games last year?

And you're comparing it to say Cooley in your check's full year outside the NHL. Would your opinion really change that dramatically? Maybe it's close. Maybe it's if you lean Czofsky, maybe it's a coin flip. Maybe you do lean Cooley now. Like, again, I know neither of you did share his opinion, but if you thought Slavkosky was the best player, was there really enough evidence to, change your mind substantially based on the fact that one guy was in the NHL at 18 and those

you know that other guy wasn't i mean a 60 point college season is still a 60 point college season so i think sure by and large people are going to be much more not maybe not much more impressed but certainly more impressed by coolly than they were a year ago um yep i i i agree with that i'd be curious if we were to go i don't know what the numbers were on bob's 10 scout poll a year ago but if I recall that all three of Slavkovsky and Kooley and Wright got votes in it, I wonder if Bob or one of us did a reset on that and pulled 10 NHL scouts today. I expect that it still wouldn't be unanimous, but that the poll would certainly now favor Kooley over Slavkovsky and Wright.

And I think that's because of A, the 60 point freshman year, and B, because of the way he skates and the position that he plays and the opportunity that he's going to have in Arizona. And all of that does feel like the case is just strengthened relative to those other two guys. Yeah. And I, Corey, I would also, just real quick, I would also say, based on the 40, almost 40 games that we saw last year, I don't necessarily know that Montreal would make that decision again to put them right in the, I mean, I'm sure they probably would put them in the NHL.

I personally, I didn't necessarily think that that was the best pass. forward for him with that particular team. You know, get him with Marty St. Louis, all that stuff. I don't disagree with that. Yeah, I just don't think he looked ready. Yeah, and the pace of the game ate him up a bit. And that's, you know, that's to be expected for a younger player, especially a player playing his first year in North America.

You know, I think that I would have rather have seen him in LaVal, to be quite frank. I think it worked wonders for your check. I don't disagree. I don't think he looked mostly ready, but I guess that. But the argument was more like, well, if he would have been in LaVal, he would have been in TPS or say even college hockey. It's just such a massive distinction between comparing a guy in the NHL versus the guy who was 18 in college. I also agree with Scott.

Again, I think if you talked to a lot of NHL, I think it was a very minority opinion in the NHL. There was people who talked to who had Culea one was minority. I'm sure that would be, I think that opinion has grown since then. But obviously, you know, everyone has their own opinions. You know, when Bob did his poll for this past draft, I think nine of the 10 scouts he pulled had Ventilia two. One of them of the 10 had Mitch Cove at two. and then Carlson went out too. So, you know, everybody has their own opinions.

Nothing's pulled through. Yeah. No, but I think this is a good debate, though. Yeah. Yeah, let's move on to the next one here because I know, Scott, you wanted to talk to Corey about the placement of some of these D on the list. Yeah, this is more of just a theoretical thing with these lists. I've actually spoken with people at TSN who are part of their panel for the top 50

NHL players, obviously much different than doing prospects in sort of under 23s. but I've had the same gripe with some of these other lists that are produced where it just feels to me, and I think this has been a consistent theme in TSN's list over the years. Like the D are always relative to how they're viewed by NHL clubs always just seem to be, at least the top D seemed to be a little bit low. And that caught my eye when I was looking at the list and you had guys like cousins and Baneers 7-8 and then guys like cider and power sort of outside the top 10. I know they're all in relatively similar tiers.

so maybe it's nitpicking. But it feels to me like if you're looking at Moritz-Sider and Owen Power relative to Dylan Cousins and Maddie Baneers, Maddie Baneers and Dylan Cousins are probably low-end 1-C's or very high-end 2-Cs. And I think most teams would take the number one defenseman in a player like a Moritz Cider or potentially Owen Power if he puts it all together.

And I think we all expect that he will. It just feels to me, and we've seen this at the draft really, over the last few years as well, this theme of the premium on those stud D. And so, yeah, that just caught my eye a little bit. I would probably have cider and power ahead of, say, cousins and Ben-Ears, for example. I guess by disagree with the characterization of those players,

I don't think they're low-end one-Cs. I think they're legit one-Cs personally. Like, I think, you know, like Ben-Ears has a chance to be like an onset copatart type. I think Dylan Cousins has a chance to, you know, you look at what Rupa Hens is doing right now on Dallas, I think he can be that kind of player. Like, I think, I think they're one C's

over the career. And just my philosophy is that I would take the 1C over the 1D. I just think that, and I, and it's, and those are both exceptionally valuable players. But my, my, when I'm doing player lists, both

draft a prospect list and draft and do draft level list, I usually go in terms of, when it's a tie and talent, I go center, then D, uh, than wing, typically. That's typically how I do it, just based on my view of what the most valuable positions are.

I think the number one center is the most valuable position in hockey. See, I would argue that even Rupert Hintz is not a top 16 number one center in the NHL at the moment. As great as Rupa Hince is, and I would, and then on the flip side would argue that I don't think Baneers is going to be on Zay Kopitar. So, yeah, I don't know. if the cutoff is the middle of the league is six there's 32 number one centers I think both of those guys are likely going to be in that 17 to 32 range more than that 1 to 16 range if the cutoff is 32 number 1d our cider and power going to be in the upper half of that through the prime of their careers and I think the answer is is more likely yes on that so that's an that's an interesting

point I because I as you're I think as you're making it too and I certainly wondered that too, as we look at the drafts and we saw it this year where we thought we had a lot of more valuable forwards and the NHL team started, you know, the run on defensemen started much earlier than we thought it would. You know, I did find that interesting. The one that I wanted to pinpoint, though, just for the sake of further conversation, and we're kind of talking about it already. But the one that I wanted to pinpoint for further conversation is power and veneers. Obviously, same draft year. We just did this exercise. And Corey, it's not that I disagree because actually I think I may have, you know,

Baneers, the argument for me between Baneers and Power was throughout that entire draft season. And it was very close at the end. And now, you know, we've obviously seen Maddie Baneers win a Calder trophy. We saw Owen Power have a strong season and be in the mix for that award as well. But Corey, I just wanted to further drill down kind of on your thinking on that and on. Baneer's over power and then ultimately, you know, if we think power is going to be an NHL All-Star, you know, he's probably all, maybe he's always going to be behind Rasmus Dahlin as well as a number two. So I just wonder you're thinking on that.

Well, with Baneers, the question I think for him coming up when he was a draft eligible was, you know, obviously we saw the good skating, we saw the exceptional compete, we saw good hockey sense. But I think the one minor question in his game was, is the offense going to be exceptional? Does this, is this a guy with high-end skill and playmaking ability? I think the answer to that question is yes. I think, you know, he's shown that in his rookie NHL season, that he can be a significant offensive contributor, that he can run a power play in the NHL.

And I'm not saying this is going to be like an 80, 90-point player, but I think, you know, I think he showed he could be a 70-point player. I think he could be a 75-point player potentially with a really strong two-way play. And that, to me, is an absolute elite. NHL player, a guy who changes a franchise in a massive way. And so I think you look at Baneers and I don't see any questions in his game at the moment that would keep me from giving him some of the most highest grades as a hockey player. Yeah. No, that makes a lot of sense to me. And on that, we're going to stick with the Michigan theme too, because the one thing that we haven't mentioned,

you know, and is that Luke Hughes is in your top 10. He is the number one defenseman on this list. and to me, like, I'm on the fence about it with him overpower in Sider myself. But at this, you know, and I think he's an exceptional player. I think he belongs in the tier that he's in. I think you could make arguments that the other two guys may as well. But what is the separation between him and the tier between Sider and Power in particular? I had this discussion with Max. I got the pushback that I'm going to get on that one.

And especially because the other two, especially Sider. are much more NHL proven. And, you know, they are bigger as well. I think with Luke, there's just some dynamic traits in his game that would elevate him me over the other two. Like, I think power and cider boats skate really well for big guys. But Luke's skating ability is high-end, especially for a guy who sticks too.

Like, he's, I think, the athletic tools just off the charts. And then you add in that I think he has offense in his game too. I don't know if it's not going to be Quinn Hughes offense. But I think it's comparable offense to those two players at least. So I think, you know, it's the offensive touch is similar. I think the skating is much better than either of them, even though he's smaller and definitely doesn't have maybe the mean streak the cider has. And I just think there's some, like I said,

I think there's just a little bit more there in terms on the tools front. And I think, again, generally he's had a really strong track record, great college player, strong international play. and I just think there's some real big potential in his game to be an impact NHL player. But I get why you'd push back on that. I get why many others would push back on it because the other two are very proven players at a very important position. Yeah.

And I don't entirely disagree with it because, I mean, I'm obviously very high on Luke as well. It's just interesting to see as we, as you know, you kind of look at the structure of the list and you see those two guys there. But yeah, no, it makes sense to me. And I think it's a, you know, the dynamic elements are certainly, as we see what, you know, what Quinn Hughes is able to do with dynamic elements and what Cal McCar is able to do with dynamic elements. That's put them, Adam Fox, you know, they put them in the upper echelon of defensemen in the NHL. All right. All right. We're going to take a quick break right there, last ads, and then we're going to come back and we're going to wrap up this one with a few more, this or that. All right, we are back.

And Corey, you're not done. we've known throughout this draft process that you have been kind of seen as the high guy on Nate Danielson. And I think we certainly see that in this list. And I know Scott wants to take you to task on where you have Nate. Yeah. I mean, we've been, Corey and I have talked on this pie. I think this might be the third podcast. Corey and I have talked about Nate Danielson.

So not a new conversation, but was a little bit surprised that he was ahead of a couple of the forwards that were behind him. In particular, I think Kent Johnson and Cutter Gotech left out, especially Cutter just after what he accomplished last season, obviously outside the NHL, but by the same token, Nate Danielson has only exclusively played in the WHL. Cutter, we saw dominant at the men's world championships, obviously an excellent freshman season at BC, has really, really put it together and looked like everything that the Flyers were hoping he would look like when they drafted him in the top 10. And I was a guy who a year ago had Cutter sort of in that 10 to 15 range more than,

more than where they took him. But he has just absolutely, without question, sold me on his merits as a sort of true, true top prospect in the sport. And I just, I can't quite get to that same level of excitement about Nate Danielson. And then KJ, I mean, you guys know I've been really high on his skill level. I think he's going to eventually really click as an offensive point producer. Won't have the roundedness and may not be the center in the way that Nate and Cutter are. But those two left out, left out at me, especially Cutter.

I truly believe that Cutter is a sort of cut above Nate Danielson. Well, I think, you know, Danielson versus Johnson would be maybe a more in the weeds discussion because very different stylistic players. But I think Danielson versus Gochay, you can kind of, connect those dots pretty easily. At least in terms of maybe you prefer one or the other. I don't think it's unreasonable prefer one or the other,

but I think there are some distinct similarities there. They're both about the similar size. We'll see whether Go-J is a center or a wing, but they're about similar size centers. They both, I think, skate similarly. I have Danielson's skill just as highly rated as Go-Jay. In fact, I think I might even prefer his skill,

be quite honest. Go-Jay shot is much better. But I think both guys work hard enough. I think Danielson might compete even a little bit harder. And that's what's the edge for me is I just see a two-way center with legit skill and who skates well. So I just think they're both guys who I think check every box who I think look like top six forwards in the NHL and maybe top six centers in the NHL. And the debate with Danielson has always come back to the offense. And I think the offense will be there in a legit manner.

I think he's shown that over his track record over the last few years in the WHL. I know it wasn't there this past season in a major way. But when I was watching the player, I saw that player there in a significant manner in terms of his skill and his playmaking. And I think, like I said, I think it will be there.

And if I think it will be there, then I can connect that dot between him and Gochay, who I think maybe doesn't have as much pure skill, but as a much more talented goal score. I would add, I don't know. I think, I think we could, you know, we'd get into the weeds a little bit. I do think that Cutter has more individual skill on the puck than Danielson, at least from what I've seen.

And then on top of that, I mean, I know you mentioned that there's similar sizes, but Cutter is a man. And you see Nate around the rank, you see Cutter around the rank. They do have a bit of a different look and feel to them in terms of Cutter could step into the Flyers dressing room tomorrow and be one of the most strictly mature athletes in that room. I don't think you could say the same about Nate, even though he's a great athlete. a sort of stocky-ish kid in his own right. So I just think that that size element, the goal scoring premium, what he has proven already against higher level competition, all of that feels like it checks for cutter for me.

Another one from this draft class, Corey, that I know Chris wanted to talk about, is David Reimbacher, and this was one we talked about a ton in the lead-up to the draft and his placement. He does end up going as the top D in this class. but where you have him in this class, sorry, in this list, is at number 25. So he's the first guy after the Cooley tier. Yeah, you know, I think this is, to me, obviously, this is, I think the reason that I push back a little bit is I feel like there's obviously a lot of projecting going on with

these guys that were just drafted, the guys that, you know, haven't had a chance yet. Obviously, Ryan Bacher, you know, Corey's been high on them from the very beginning. And I had him as the top, you know, one of the top D in the last draft class as well, where I just haven't seen enough for me to say that he's going to be a top of the lineup defenseman. I think he has the potential to be that. I think there's a chance that he is going to be that. I feel like we've seen a bit more from guys like Jamie Drysdale, Kevin Korkinski, even Simon Edmondson, who I haven't been as high on.

You know, so I'm just as I'm looking at those, at those defensemen and then I don't think that he has to be a lot lower. It was just, you know, I look at guys that that were on here, you know, particularly Kortchinsky and Driesdale, who are the closest, who are obviously different in a lot of ways, you know, much more offensive-minded. You know, I think Driesdale has shown it a little bit more at the NHL level, has shown, shown some proclivity, you know, when he's been healthy for playing, you know, a solid offensive game. a guy that can be a power play weapon and things like that. To me, I just feel like, and this is always the case when we're projecting out, I just feel like there's a higher risk in that projection of Reinebacher over some of these guys that, you know, it's tough because as we get into this, as we get into this tier of the top of the lineup players, you know, I think that there's probably a lot of things that I might change with the way that Corey ordered things,

just because I think that that's naturally how these things tend to go. We all seem to have a pretty similar idea of guys at the top, and then as it gets a little bit further down, that's when things kind of start to separate. But I'd just be curious to know, Corey, on your front, just what leads you to believe that, you know, as we look at the defenseman on here, you know, he's what, the sixth or seventh defenseman in the among these players,

what put him over the top for you and put him in a top of the lineup tier? well i guess well i'll be curious to ask you once i answer to your question is how would you rate him or what would be your analysis of him compared to say david year check uh simon nemich and kennedy korechinsky this time last year be curious to see how you would split those hairs but for me i see a mobile defenseman uh who has shown significant offense at a very high level who competes well um has good size like i think he just he just i just, I think, brings a lot to the table, and there's no clear issues that I find in his game. He's had success versus men, which is always a big hurdle to cross for me. And like I said, I understand he's not like a high, high end offensive type.

You know, Montreal even said after the, after they dropped it up, he's probably not going to run our PP1. But I think he can be a pretty, you know, significant minutes either in all situations playing high in a lineup. I think he has all the traits you want in a potential top pair of defensemen. But like I said, when I think of him versus David Yerichick at the same age, I'm not sure I see much of a distinction. Oh, I see a big gap between the two. And I did in the draft year. And then obviously we have now the data of Yurichick being, you know,

a quality HL defenseman in year one. And, you know, to me, I just, I thought that Yurichick had the more, he had the more complete game. I thought I liked his defensive ability. I liked his mobility. I mean, I think that Ryan Bacher is probably better. You don't think Ryan Bacher is not a good defender? He's a fine defender.

I think Eurechec is a more physical, better defender. He's more physical, but I think Ryanbacker's defense was really good. It was good. I just don't think, I don't, I thought that the total package of Eurechek, and he was the defenseman that I had in the top of my list for that draft, you know, I actually, I I do. I think there is separation between Reimbach and Nemich. And I think I came around on Kornensky later, and especially after this past season, we saw a lot more of where he's potentially going. I just, to me, I don't know, like, as much as we saw the production in the

Swiss League and that it was, you know, historic for a player of his age and everything, I don't necessarily know that he is going to be have that offensive impact um at the n hl level as you said as as as you know he's not going to probably be a top power play guy um you know i just i feel like there are more i i feel like i have more questions about you know his where his what he ultimately becomes as an nchel defense than the other guys i feel like the other guys a little bit more defined in what they're going to be and i i don't know if if ryanbacker is going to be a top pairing defenseman I think he will be at worst a top four defensemen, but I just, I still,

I've never really been able to get around to the idea that he is a clear cut top pairing defenseman. How about Cole Perfetti, Scott? I know that was one that you had wanted to bring up. Yeah, that was sort of the last one. I thought watching Cole, well, two feelings on Cole. One, I think, I mean, if you were to grade out hockey IQ for this entire list, he's like top five and almost without question for me up there with the guys who are right at the very top in the top, already ranked in the top 10 up there with the

Trevor Zegroces, etc, et cetera, just an incredibly, incredibly smart hockey player. Now, there have been concerns about his size and his durability and him not being sort of a great skater for that size. But I thought in watching Cole last year that he put a lot of those questions to bed, I thought before his injury last year, like he was really trending to be a clear cut top six player on that Jets team. I think as early as this fall, you're going to see him play in a premium role on the first line of that team, on the first power play of that team, finally on a consistent basis. And I just don't see an outcome for him at this point that doesn't have him as a premium, premium player in Winnipeg.

And I wouldn't be surprised if within the next two or three seasons, we were talking about him already being a sort of 70 point guy. I just think he's that smart. He's that gifted with the puck. He's going to run that power play. Everything offensively feels like it's about to start running through him in Winnipeg. And I think he's based off what we saw last year in that two-thirds of the season that he played, I thought he looked ready for it. So I'm mostly just really excited about Cole and what I think he's about to become over the next couple of seasons here.

And at 55, I just saw names in front of him, guys like, Logan Stankhoven, who I'm also a huge, huge fan of. But there were just a few forwards in front of him who, A, hadn't really shown it at the NHL level. Obviously, Cole has now done that last season and it had a really solid sort of start. And B, I think even at the junior level prior, we saw in Cole, a player who was just a little bit different from everybody in terms of on-ice smarts. And I think that can carry, when it's that high end, I think that can carry a kid a long way. I mean, I don't disagree on the hockey sense.

I agree with you if you can put him that highly in terms of pure hockey sense at skill. And I agree. So I'm watching up his games last year in Winnipeg. And the playmaking stood out in a significant manner. And the brain operates at a different level than those around him. But you mentioned the concerns there with the size and the skating. And particularly the biggest one for me was the injury prone issues, is that especially when you are that side, when you do have the frame he has. And that ever since he's turned pro, he does seem to get hurt at a concerning rate.

It's not enough for me to not think he's not going to be a top six forward. I do think he's going to be a top six forward in the NHL. But that is a minor concern for me. I do worry about his lack of finish two at times. That has been a little bit of a concern of late, especially as a pro. And I just, I think it was a really good stretch there in the NHL when he was healthy. the 40, 50 games he played this past season. But I would want to see that more consistently and definitely see him stay on the ice a little bit more,

especially for his player type, which if he's scoring at a big rate is valuable, but if he's always scoring in a decent rate and he's also injury prone, all of a sudden becomes very replaceable. All right. Great stuff, gentlemen, Corey. Thank you for standing in and defending your dissertation. And Max, can I say one thing too? because we obviously we're here to pick on Corey,

but we also have a great, and I said this before, we have a great appreciation for what it goes into. And I really, it is just nitpicking. And I think, you know, putting this,

putting a list like this together is a huge challenge, especially like the way that Corey does it with the U23, you got guys in the NHL, you've got guys. And it is a great way to piss a lot of people off, which Corey does exceptionally well, including me. But I think that it is,

it's it's you know but scott corey you know max when you jump in and you do prospect stuff you know you got the not like this is this is not easy to do and um so corey thanks for standing in there and taking our punches but just know that uh it comes from a place of love it really does it does it is not to swear but it is uh effing hard and uh i don't know if you guys have ever heard but I once ranked Jake Sanderson 17th in his draft. No. Has Ottawa ever mentioned that to you, Scott, like the entire city of Ottawa? Have they ever said that to you?

I don't think so. They ever remind you of that? I think you guys are fair to say it does piss a couple people off at sometimes. Yeah, and it's also fun when it pisses off the people that actually are doing this for a living in the NHL. And those are fun to hear from. Well, I think this was really fun to hear from you guys, all three of you. Great stuff today. That is going to do it for us, though.

Thanks for listening to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show's prospect series. You can follow us on YouTube at YouTube.com slash at The Athletic Hockey Show. And you can catch more of Chris over at Flow Hockey and his podcast Talking Hockey Sets. Right now, you can get a one-year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month when you visit theathletic.com slash hockey show. We'll talk to you soon.