The Athletic Hockey Show - Matvei Michkov is the story of the 2023 NHL Draft, Pronman and Wheeler’s two-round mock review, listener questions, and more

Episode Date: May 26, 2023

On this week’s Prospect Series episode of The Athletic Hockey Show, Max and Corey are joined by The Athletic’s own Scott Wheeler to discuss Corey’s and Scott’s two-round mock of the 2023 NHL Draft, including interesting choices for the Habs at No. 5, the Flyers at No. 7, the Blues at No. 10, and the Jets at No. 18.Plus, FloHockey’s Chris Peters jumps in with Max and Corey to help explain why Matvei Michkov is the real story of 2023 NHL Draft and the guys close things out with a bunch of listener questions in the mailbag.Subscribe to The Athletic Hockey Show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowGet a 1-year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month when you visit http://theathletic.com/hockeyshowSign up for a Chime Checking Account today to link your paycheck. It only takes two minutes and doesn’t affect your credit score. Get started at http://chime.com/nhlshow.Download the Dave app from the App store right now or go to http://dave.com/nhlshow Sign up for an Extra Cash account and get up to 500 dollars instantly. For terms and conditions go to dave.com/legal. Instant transfer fees apply. Banking services provided by Evolve bank and trust. Member FDIC.Head to http://FACTORMEALS.com/nhlshow50 and use code nhlshow50 to get 50% off your first box.The right tone can move any project forward when you get it just right with Grammarly. Go to http://grammarly.com/tone to download and learn more about Grammarly Premium’s advanced tone suggestions.Check out all of the delicious options at http://nuts.com/hockey23. You’ll receive a free gift and free shipping when you spend $29 or more 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 Prominent and Chris Peters of Flow Hockey for another episode of The Athletic Hockey Show's Prospect Series. Got a really good show on tap today. Scott Wheeler is going to join us in just a moment to talk about him and Corey's latest mock draft. We're going to dive a little deeper on Motveh Kov. We've got a really good mailbag as well. Before we jump in, I want to tell you about New York Times audio, a new iOS app for New York Times

news subscribers. It's got our show. It's got other great podcasts from The Athletic, exclusive shows, narrated articles, and more New York Times Audio. Download it now at n.Ytimes.com slash audio app. All right. Let's get to it. Let's welcome in Scott Wheeler. Scott and Corey had a really good mock earlier this week. Two-round mock, two-person mock, alternating picks. Welcome to the show, Scott. How you doing? I'm doing well. I was telling you're producing here. before we hopped on telling Chris here that I've been on a bit of a gauntlet with these. This is, I think, show number four for me today. I don't know why I scheduled a bunch of these for the same day,

but today's a podcast workday, I guess. The Wheeler Media Tour, for those that don't know, Scott just had a new baby. So between the draft and the ensuing appearances he's got, and that he is one of the busiest people in hockey right now. So we really appreciate you taking the time today, Scott. Let's get right into this mock draft. This was a really fun article that you and Corey did. Always love when you two team up on stuff.

And you just kind of went back and forth, which I think is cool because we kind of know from reading your rankings where each of you two stand on prospect. This was predictive and this was alternating. So you didn't always have the guys on the board who might have been your next one up. I thought it made for a really cool product. One of the things that I want to talk about, though, in this mock, Motvi-Mitchkoff slips to number eight to Washington. And I want to just kind of key in to start here on some of the guys who went ahead of him. You were the first one who had a pick after the top kind of consensus for five at Montreal. You went with Ryan Leonard to Montreal.

What kind of went into there? Why did Leonard go ahead of Michkov for that spot? Yeah, that pick, I took Michkov the first time around in my own mock, and I'll have one more sort of final one before this is all done. And that picks the one, probably the first one at least, that I've really struggled with. I've felt pretty comfortable about the first four. and then Montreal, if it goes that way where those sort of talk four guys, if you will, with Will Smith sort of joining that group, they go one, two, three, four, and nobody feels

comfortable taking the plunge on Michakov. It does just feel like Montreal's a question mark, not just because of where they're at as an organization, but because of the number of sort of smaller players, in particular smaller forwards outside of your ice, Slavkovsky that they've taken at the last few drafts, the uncertainty about where Nick Bobrov, their co-director of amateur, your scouting is at. Nick's obviously a Russian-born person, but just hasn't really gone to the Russian well all that often,

all things considered. So where's he at in terms of the geopolitics of it and his knowledge of Matt Bay Michikov, which I'm sure is dialed in? It just, it's tricky. And it does feel as well like there's that next group that we're sort of going to talk about here of Dalbert-Divorski, David Reimbacker, and Ryan Leonard.

Those feel like if there's the consensus top four or five at the top, those feel like a next group. I think Leonard makes sense, A, because of sort of the connection to Ken Hughes, that he's from the same area. He's sort of very familiar with those Massachusetts kids, plural, whether that's Will Smith or Ryan Leonard. Ryan's a sort of Western mass guy and Will's more the Boston guy. But yeah, that piece of it is interesting.

Just the physicality, that sort of driver that Ryan Leonard is, I think, could. be very compelling for that team, his ability to score and shoot, but also just that sort of dog on a bone approach that he plays with, I think is really appealing. And I've heard multiple scouts over the course of this year have told me that earlier in the year that he could have been the first guy off the board. I think we expect that that's going to be Will Smith now in terms of the NTDP. But even now that he's almost surely going to be the second kid off the board from the NTP and that there are teams that consider him a top five, top six, top seven guys. So it just, I'm still not sure where that's going to land with Montreal.

It's not one I feel super comfortable with, but it does feel like he makes sense for Ken Hughes, for sort of a compliment to some of the other players that they have, all of that. So it'll be interesting. That's, that's going to be sort of the first domino to fall, if you will, I think, at five. And Corey had the next pick, and it goes to Arizona, which all of a sudden, as a result, you know, of, I mean, not that it's an easy decision either way, I suppose, but as a result of the vote, the referendum vote recently, there's even more uncertainty that I think adding Mitchcoff in there makes this a really interesting kind of discussion, Corey. You have them going with David Reimbacher. Right. And I don't have information one way or another on what Arizona is thinking of six in regards to Mitchcoff. I mean, you know, you hear rumors. I mean, everything with the mock draft is always rumors. You never really know, no.

But the way I would have discussions with people on Hockeybet, Arizona's decision at six regards to Mitchkoff is, you know, you put yourselves in their shoes and put yourself in Mishkoff's shoes. Just forget about what you might hear, but it's like, just be logical for a second. You have a player here in Mishkopf who is signed to a premium European organization. He's going to be paid well. Obviously, you know, has a lot of comfort in that organization likely, especially. if you think where he'll be going to be three years from now where we presume he'll have established himself as a top player on scoff and if you're looking at an initial organization where you don't know what rink they're playing in you don't know what city they're playing in i think if you were in

mitchcock situation what would you do and arizona has to relate to that so i think that's kind of the discussions in the league is you know can you make that gamble at six and can you persuade him to come. I think those are interesting decisions that Arizona has to make. I think if he's there at 12, it's maybe a different discussion point to that at that point, the talent is just so massive and the alternatives are not as enticing. But at six, I think you can get a player like David Reinfocker, who has really excelled all season between club and international play. He just had a really great last game of the season there for Austria when it was a must-win game at the World v. Hungary. I think he played something like 22, 23 minutes in that game and played really

well. And the game went to a shootout and they had to come back, which was a little bit of a surprise, to be quite honest. But they ended up winning that game. He played a big role. It looked very good at, you know, in the world against men, some NHL players. And I think this is an organization that hosts Jacob Chikrin, host Oliver Ekman-Larsen. You're looking for that next premium young defenseman and I think he can check that box and be a big part of that organization for a very long time. Yeah, I think anytime you get the top D in the draft too, right, or the guy we think is going to go first, at least in the draft, there's a really, you know, compelling case.

That's certainly not going to be there around 12, right? So there's that. And kind of like to Scott's point, like I think, I think most people consider Ryan Bacher in that next group, not in the previous group, but just kind of how like I've heard the same thing as Scott that there's a minority opinion out there that would have Leonard up there with Smith. There's a minority opinion out there that has Reimbocker there with Smith and Carlson. There are those opinions in the league. This is a very well thought of player. I don't think that's a majority opinion out there. Most consider him in the next group

or the group after that. But I said, this is a player who's done, all he's done this season is play well whenever they've asked him in any situation. And you do wonder whether that would have picked up more steam, right? Had he been able to say, you know, healthy for all of worlds there. That could have really helped the case too. Arizona's gone to that forward well with Logan Coley, Dylan Gunther, Connor Geeky, go down the list, right, too. So their last several high picks have been forwards. Philly at 7, Scott, is a team that feels like you could go any direction.

The new front office, we don't really have a book on these guys or what they're going to go for. We have the little snippets from what we've heard from Keith Jones. But I think this was probably kind of a pivot point a little bit. You can certainly see a case from Mitchcove here. but you have him going downboard Dvorsky who post-U18s does seem to have elevated into another group. Yeah, it's interesting. I did a story on him into U-18s and spoke with people from all across AIK, and they told me on the record, and they told me on the record,

they thought he was an 11 to 20 guy going into that tournament, and that that's where NHL scouts had him, and they were talking to me about teams at 12 and 13 that had been calling all season about him and that kind of a thing. And since then, it changed. U18 worlds changed. He drove the bus. He was the best player on that team. They pulled off some big wins,

and he was consistent game after game after game. And he's now sort of reentered the conversation that he was in two years ago, sort of through Hulinka, when he outproduced Uri-Slafkowski as a double underager, Helinka and all of that. So now he's back into that sort of six to ten range. And it feels like that's where he's going to go. And the teams that were maybe hoping to get him at 12, 13, 14, 14 are not even going to have that chance.

So, yeah, an interesting one with him, and with Philly in particular, because Philly team is a, as you said, Keith has talked a little bit. He's made one thing clear, and that's that he wants to build that blue line out. He wants to build that team through the blue line. I think that sends a pretty strong, clear message that they would love if David Reimbacker were there. And then that contrast with everything that fans in that market seem to want, which is a little similar to your market in Detroit. that way as well, where the way that they tend to go and the way that they've gone in the past does seem at odds with what at least the public views is the perceived needs of that team. Everybody in Philly seems to want them to go for the high-skill swing, go after Zach Benson or

Gabe Perrault, a guy who sort of projects as more of a point producer, especially with a guy like Perot, for example. And yet... Never mind, Mitchkov. Yeah, yeah, or Michkov. And yet the Dvorski pick would be the sort of higher floor guy, right? The player with pro experience, the player with the face off detail, and who tracks back, and who's six foot one and 200 pounds. And then, of course, you get the eye rolling from the fans there of great, another guy who's skating isn't his strength, which has been a theme with a lot of picks for them over the years.

Bobby Brink, Morgan Frost, you go down the list. even Joel Farabee once upon a time it wasn't a strength of his game right so they've been there they've been to the projected 40, 50 point player right and that's there is an outcome where that's Dvorsky

and yet I just feel like in that range it's starting to feel more and more likely like it's going to be a Leonard or a Rineback or a Dvorsky and not a player like a Michkov if he's there or Gabe Perot who would certainly be a deep cut as a player who was a few months ago believed to be a mid to late first round pick and has now worked his way into that conversation.

So, yeah, Philly's going to be interesting because this is going to set the tone for the way that Keith Jones wants that team and the way that Danny Breyer wants that team to sort of move going forward. And Breyer, as we all know, was the, he was the smaller guy who wasn't a burner, right? And he's been there. So they may have both of those perspectives. I wonder if they wanted a fenceman and Reimbacher is gone if they just try to trade back to get like Willanders and Pellica or Simashev or whoever else. Yeah.

Yeah. It's not a team that was able to do much at the deadline this past year. It wouldn't be the worst thing to pick up a little extra capital for a new front office. Yeah, those trades never happen though. But it's always fun to speculate. No, I know. It's a lot more fun for us. They don't ever seem to do it.

But we need someone to do it so that we can have more justification to talk about that stuff. I think this is the year where it would happen if it was ever to happen because of that Russian variable. Yeah, absolutely. And because of how few defensemen there are. Yes, absolutely. Apologies to the Red Wings fans here. We're going to skip right over them. Scott has them taken Zach Benson, but the one I want to talk about is St. Louis at 10.

This is a really interesting team because they've got three picks in this first round. And right here at 10, Corey, you've got them going to the Tom Willander well. Right. And it's really interesting when you look at like their last couple of drafts. I think we talked about this on a previous episode. You look at, you know, Jimmy Snuggarood, first round pick 20, right wing, Zach Bullduke, first round pick 21, listed as a center, but has played exclusively wing for as for as long as I've been watching him for the most part.

You know, Jake Neighbors first round left wing dozen and 20. You go back even to their last first round pick for that, which they ended up trading, which Dominic Bach was a winger as well. It's really been quite some time since Robert Thomas, which in which they've taken a center with a first round pick and you get to go back all back to Jordan Schmaltz to when they last took a defenseman with a first round pick. And you know, you look at this organization in their farm system. They really do lack in the premium position. I get the best player available approach. I do. And Jimmy Snuggler, it looks like a heck of a hockey player right now.

If you would take the best next best center or next best defenseman, probably doesn't look like a great pick compared to Snuggarood right now. So this is not to criticize their decisions, but you look at the organization and I think on talent, Willander is reasonable at that slot. And whether it's him, whether it's Nick Danielson, whether it's Sand and Pelica, I feel like they have to walk away from the strapped at 10 with one of those premium positions. Because if you just add another winger, like, I don't know how you really build out this organization in a way that tends to lend itself to championships. And you do figure with the extra capital they have. I know we shouldn't talk too much about trading up, it just doesn't happen that much.

But the extra capital they have, either they could come up, try to get back into that range. they can hope there's a skilled winger that falls to them if they want to. If there is a winger they like, you know, or multiple wingers they like, with that extra, you know, capital later in the draft, you could have another avenue to getting that.

And it didn't happen at that range, like top 10, but we did see Arizona do that last year at San Jose, right? Arizona used their, their glutton of picks to go up to where San Jose's pick was to get their center. They highly coveted and Connor Geeky, I believe it was at 11.

So close enough to 10, you know, So, you know, if you really, you know, covet, say, Daloborne, I mean, that's, that's a potential thing you can do. Or in this one, Danielson, who goes at the next pick, right? Right. And who knows, maybe you hold, maybe it's Braden Yeager and Oliver Moore, and maybe you hold and you try to get two centers.

That's not out of the realm of possibility to take two centers and a defenseman there kind of thing and hang on to them rather than moving up. Especially because at center in particular, it does feel like where they're drafting, there will be guys available. The wingers are the guys who are going to slip, but there is enough quantity at center that you're going to have your choice between multiple centers at 10 for sure.

There will be two of three of Danielson, Yeager, or those guys are going to be going to likely be around there. Yeah. Scott, you had another really interesting one. At 13, that's the Buffalo pick. You've got them with Gabe Perrault, who obviously his stock has been on the rise He had a great year.

He broke Austin Matthew's single season record. I don't even know if we have to say it's on the rise. But I think maybe more aware since the U-18 tournament. But the placement to Buffalo here is what I want to talk about. So Buffalo's got a lot of really smaller skilled forwards in the system. You've got him here with Perot. I think you certainly make that argument. That is their type, right, based on what we've seen from them.

I wonder how much did you consider going a direction of like a right shot D, which is not as much of the strength of their current pipe? And they got the two studs on the left side, but the right side a little more uncertain. Yeah, it was definitely a strong consideration there. I think they will strongly consider it. I have them taking Sandine Pelica in my first mock. And you're right, it is more of the same.

They've drafted a number of 5 foot 11 wingers. Now, in the case of a Yeri Coolidge, for example, I mean, he's built extremely strong and stocky. He doesn't feel like a small winger to me when he's out there. But obviously, Noah Osslyn is a skinny kid, and there's been picks that way. I love Matt Savoy, and he's a very strong athletic kid for his age as well, but five foot nine, right? So five foot ten on a good day maybe. So that's, it's a factor for sure.

But I do think they're also a team that has such a strong pool really through the board that they don't really need to be all that concerned at this point about sort of picking for a specific need. got on defense in terms of size. They've got no issue there. Rasmus Dahlin, Nolan Power, Mattia Samuelson are all huge. That's their three cornerstone defensemen of the future. So they don't need to feel like they need to add more length there necessarily. I think that's why Sandy and Pelica might actually make a lot of sense because even though he is 5 foot 11, he would maybe add a different element, a little bit of a foil for those guys. And then at forward, they do have a little bit of ever, like Jack Quinn's not a driving physical power forward, but he's six foot one. And And they've got players sort of up and down that lineup that have size.

We all know what Tage Thompson looks like, et cetera. So I don't think they need to be too picky about specific things that they need. And in that case, I do think that the talent of Perrault as a potential top six playmaking type who can play on your power play, I do think that still has a lot of appeal for them, especially if they feel that the detail of a Noah Ostlin could make him a penalty killer. and players like Peyton Krebs play with a lot of energy, and they have a little bit of different elements in some of those other guys, even if they aren't big, strong guys. I think there's going to be a real appeal there to just add a point producing type,

and pro would fit the bill in that range. I'll tell you one thing I've been thinking has been going through a lot of these. I certainly think Sandy Pelok could be a fit there. I do think it might be hard to wrestle power play time away from Rasmus Delene and maybe even Owen Power after what we thought this year. And I'm thinking, oh, you know, Willander would be great for them. But I feel like you could say that about almost all these teams that we've been talking about today. Wellander could be a fit for Philly building out the back, right?

Wellander could be a fit. Even if we talk about some of those we skipped over, I don't, I think you make the argument for Washington and Detroit. Obviously, we got them going to St. Louis. Vancouver's need for a right D is well documented. And then even as we go on here, you know, to Buffalo. So that little alley there, that just seems like Tom Willander way, basically, in this draft. Yeah, I tend to agree. You mean to tell me that every team wants the six-foot-one, six-foot-two best skating defenseman in the draft?

Yeah, novel concept from me, I know, I know. No, I don't know. But, you know, I think you're absolutely right. He's just the second half that he had and what's coming at college next year where he's going to expect you to be a play a big role and all that. Just the size and the skating and the way he sort of commands the ice both ways. Even if he's not a point-producing type, there are a lot of teams. that can use that kind of guy. Yeah, absolutely.

Last team I want to get to while we still have you both here is the Winnipeg pick. And Corey, this was one that you made. This one is another right D. You had it for Oliver Bonk, which I think this is, if not the highest, close to the highest I've seen Bonk in a mock draft so far. I just wanted to hear a little more about your thought process on this one. Yeah, it wasn't what I felt overly comfortable with. I was looking at Winnipeg and you're looking at what they've drafted recently.

between, you know, Cole Perfetti, Chas Lucius, Rupert, McRourty, Brad Lambert, they've drafted a lot of skill into the organization. And outside of McRourty, it's more like maybe not like the hard or like, you know,

high compete type of skill. It's the, you know, in the case of Perfetti and Lucius, it's skill and hockey sends in a case of Lambert, at speed and skill. And, you know,

I think there is probably, you know, you call this organization probably needs a little bit more mobility, a little bit more size and hardness. But the issue, as we keep bringing up with with this draft, is when you are looking for that, whether it is size or whether it is especially, you know, quality defensemen with at least a little bit of size, it runs out real fast. And, you know, and it's why I've had some skeptics

to me that Oliver Bonk could be a top 20 pick because once you get past Willander and Rimebacker, you know, he's the next six two plus defenseman who can skate and has offense. Would that be higher than I would do it? Yes. And in hindsight, maybe 18 or 19, perhaps exactly what Winnipeg's spot was. Maybe that's a little too high to mock him. But I think it kind of shows the tension there, both the draft in terms of defensemen and in terms of Winnipeg's organizational needs.

And, you know, they haven't really targeted that kind of player in quite a few years high in the draft. So that was a little bit of the logic behind it. All right, good stuff. from both of you. I know you got more coming. Scott, we're going to take a quick break, but thank you so much for joining us today. And we'll talk to you again soon.

Cheers, guys. As always. All right, we are back. And we've got Chris Peters back with us. We let him out of the holding cell. We were keeping him in while we talked to Scott. So America's sweetheart, Chris Peters, now joins the fold.

And guys, I want to talk about the player who we get probably as many questions about as anyone, I think, in this draft class when we open up the mailbag. That's Mavimichkov. Corey, why do you think that is that there is this fascination with Mitch Kov? Well, I really think he is the story of the 2023 NHL draft because I think we know Connor Bredard is going number one to Chicago. We don't know the order of the next couple of players, but we presume Adam Fantitly,

Bill Carlson, Will Smith are likely going to two, three, four. No guarantees on that front. But we know they're going to be very, very high draft picks. but nobody with certainty can tell you where Montefi Michkov is going to go. And it is fascinating given the caliber of player we are talking about. This is a player who two full years ago led Russia's Junior League in Goals, who was the MVP of his U-18 World Championships, who one season before his draft led the Holinka in goals and points,

who was a top player for Russia's World Junior team, who played on their national team, who led his junior team, his club team to a championship, and who this year had, I think, the most productive year ever by a player who was dropped eligible in the KHL. His track record is incredible, but yet, because of his contract signed

through the KHO for three more years, because of the Russia-Ukraine war, and because, frankly, he has some imperfections as a player. He is a small, average foot speed, one-way wing, and all these factors come together and I can't sit here and confidently tell you where Montevay-Michikov is going to go in the draft. And frankly, nobody in the league I talk to can confidently say whether he's going top five, whether he's going top ten.

We think he likely will, but nobody can confidently tell you that right now. And I think teams are still figuring out where they fall in because a lot of these decisions are not being made by the people I talk to the most, which are hockey people. this goes all the way up to the ownership in a lot of these cases. So that's what makes this so fascinating. And it's going to be the story of the draft for me, not because of how good a player he is, but because of the repercussions and the implications of either picking or not picking him.

It almost feels like Montfei Michkov is going to get somebody fired. I don't know who it is. I'm not saying it's the team that definitely picks him, but it could be the team that doesn't pick him, too. it's a and like I said it's fascinating who actually takes that plunge and who decides

they don't want to do it. I think that's going to be a story we're going to be talking about for a very long time after the draft. Chris, who can take that plunge? When you sit and you look at the teams, we're talking about this kind of alleyway, but it seems like we have no idea where that alleyway ends

and I want to know who stands out to you as the teams who could afford to take that plunge. Yeah, I mean, really. I mean, Here's the thing. I think the other important factor is, is once you assess the risk and then you look at the player and then you make your decision, you say, how can we afford to pass him up if he's the best player on the board? And that's, there's more. So all of Corey's points are completely accurate. And, you know, so I'm, I'm kind of tiptoeing around it. But I would say that, you know, you're in terms of who can take that leap really. anybody could. I mean, we're talking from four, I feel like from four on, it just doesn't feel like the blue jackets are going to, are going to jump in there.

I don't think the ducks have any interest in jumping in there. But I think from four on, then all of a sudden you have to have these discussions. And as Corey says, when you enter, when you bring in the ownership discussion part of it, it does complicate things further. From a pure hockey perspective, let's keep in mind, he's, okay, he's under contract for three years. I would say it's unlikely that he signs an extension. I would say that, and I would say that, you know, based on everything that we know about Russian players, the best players still want to come to the NHL.

And if you're picking after four or five, maybe you're only losing one year of Matt Bay-Michkov, because how likely would it be that he'd be an everyday NHL or in year one? Zero percent chance. And then, you know, how likely would it be he'd be an NHL or that following year? much better chance and then an even better chance. And then you get probably the most ready Matt Faye Mitchcock you could get in, in that, after that third year that you had to wait for him. So going down the list, I mean, you know, I think that the quality of the players around him also impacts the decision and that say, hey, we're going to go with the safer route.

I think even at, if Philadelphia hadn't just made a pretty significant change in terms of the top. I feel like they, they could have been one of the teams that that jumped on that. It's not, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's, it was 100% likely because they're kind of in a, in a situation where they need to start compiling guys and get things moving in the right direction sooner than later, although Carter Goce is looking like a really good pick with how he's played at the world, world championship and how I think he'll play next season. But, you know, I think really, to me, I don't see him going past eight or nine. I think that that's where Mitch Cobb ultimately ends up. I think Washington is in a position where, yes, they're going to begin

the transition phase away from their current core. And that could happen with whatever they do with Evgeny Kuznetsov and where things go after this. But I think that, hey, we're losing Alex Ovechkin, but at eight, we are now getting possibly one of the best players in the draft. And that's value, I don't think you can pass up. You have enough to get you through for these next couple of years. But if you make Matt Bay Mitch Cobb, the centerpiece of your whatever rebuild or retooling phases is on the horizon, that makes sense. You know, I don't think Steve Eiserman would be afraid to take the best player available at number nine either. And so, you know, if you're Washington, you probably have to feel like, hey, the next pick. And as, and to Corey's point,

it'll take a few years to figure it out. But you don't want to be remembered as the guy who, who let that guy go, that you were too afraid to take the risk. But you also might not live to see the day that you'll hopefully be alive, but you won't have a job to be able to enjoy the benefits if things go south for you. I mean, three years is a long time in general manager life. And so I think, but I really do truly believe that you have to start having that discussion at four and you have to keep having that discussion as you go further and further down. But yeah, I think to me, you know, anyone of Montreal, you know, Arizona probably not, but

Montreal could have that discussion. Philly should at least have the discussion. They don't necessarily have to go that way. I think they have a long timeline for where they're headed. So I feel like there is a little bit of wiggle room for them. I just don't know if that's what Danny Breyer wants his first draft pick to be. And then, you know, basically from eight and nine is where I think I just have a hard time seeing either one of those teams saying, no, we're not taking them. I was talking to somebody with the team the other day about the idea of taking him, even if you don't think you can get him signed.

You know, there's always kind of like the theory with Russians. You've got to be an original 16 or by a beach, which I don't think is accurate kind of thing. No, yeah, it isn't. but like that's how some people think. But he had a really good point. He's like even if you can't get him signed, like even three years past and he tells you he 100% will never consider signing with you.

And it depends how the three years go. He still needs to prove he could be a star KHL player. We think he will get there. I have we have. We imagined a likely scenario by the end of his KHL contract. He will establish himself as an impact player at that level. He has to prove it first. hasn't done that yet. We think he will get there. All he's done is score, wherever he's gone

over his life. Even if he won't sign with you, you have a massive trade piece right now. Because he dictate, he might dictate you where he wants to go, but if that team wants a star player, they're going to have to pay you a significant price. So I thought that was a persuasive argument in favor if you think he is the best player available, which not everybody does. And like I said, for the reasons I said before, about some of the holes in his profile and the fact that just frankly, like, it's hard to think of a comparable for him.

I keep using Nikita Kuturov as the comparable for him in my write-ups, but I don't think that's accurate. Kutrov is a better skater. He competes much harder than Mitchkoff does. But I think Mitchkoff, frankly, has more skill. And Nikita Kuturov is full of skill in hockey sense. But if you go back to them at the same age, this guy outscores Kuturov by a significant.

good margins. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's an important point, too, is like, really, I mean, we can't stress enough that the offensive skill set of this player and the, and the offensive brain of this player is as good as there is. I mean, I even throw Connor Bedard in that. I think Connor Bedard's a better overall hockey player, but I think in terms of offensive toolkit, I mean, there's just so much there with Mitch Kov. And, you know, we've, we've seen it, you know, Corey and I have seen him in person. We've seen it up close. And then we've also, you know, been watching him continue and no matter where he goes, he scores. And, you know, that's, that's just something that, you know, if, if he were over here, I mean, I can't even imagine the numbers that he would be putting up at the

CHL level or in college hockey or anywhere like that. Most hockey people have talked to again. Not everybody, against people have concerns on the one-way play, the skating, et cetera. But most hockey people I talk to believe, if he was in the Canadian hockey league, he was would he would be in the conversation for the first overall pick. Yeah, I agree. And that is, and that is considering the context of everything we've said about Connor Bardard and how good of prospects he is. It's interesting context because now you're, you're really thinking about this caliber

of player. And again, no, there are no guarantees in the NHL draft. We've said really positive things about, you know, going back to, you know, many years of covering prospects. And there's been guys like Jonathan Drewann or, you know, Alexei Lepernier, who I would say extremely positive things about. and it doesn't work out. They don't always work out.

But you look at the caliber of talent we're talking about, and then you're talking about, well, maybe we'll take Brian Leonard, or maybe we'll take Dalbert of Orski. Maybe we'll take, I don't know, Zach Benson or Gaye Perot

or Matthew Wood or Samuel Hahn. Like at some point, it really stops. Like, at some point, I have to stop, like, believing the things I'm hearing from around the league and start just asking myself, does this logically make sense? And I think when doing mock drafts and predicting the drafts,

draft, that's usually the best task. From what you've seen, from what you know about the game, does this make sense? And at a certain point, I think it stops making sense. Let's talk about the contract, because Chris made a really good point a couple of minutes ago when he said, you know, this goes along with Corey's point. It does not, you don't have to get that far in the top 10 before. You're really only talking about a one-year difference with some of these guys on the timeline, assuming it is three years.

And I know there's still a little bit of uncertainty. But Corey, you made a point in your dual mock with Scott, you had them going to Washington, you make the point about Ivan Muresh Nishenko, who, you know, they kind of get out of that deal early in a way. I know every team is going to look at that and say, hey, well, we'll just do the same thing. It's obviously more complicated than that. But I just wanted to kind of hear your thoughts on what we project as that three-year timeline, the overall, you know, how plausible is it that someone could try to do that?

What do we even know about what that would look like? Yeah, I think it's a little different. I think Ivan Maroscienko's KHL deal was constructed with the with, with clauses in there that can get him out. And Avengar is not Skha. And Mirzacchenkov is not Michkov. Mitchkov is a household name in Russia right now, signed with a very prominent and powerful organization. I think those are very different circumstances. And Mersa Chenko just simply didn't have a great playoff there in Avengar's junior team.

And obviously just came off at a very, you know, difficult battle. of cancer. I think that was just, they just changed their management group. I think it was just circumstances led itself to that happening, to where it made sense for everybody to just let him come to North America, which is what he's wanted to do since he was 16 years old. I don't see the same circumstances with Mitchcock. I think if you're drafting him, you have to presume he's there for the full three years. I don't see a buyout likely happening unless you have some sort of fortune to throw Scas way by any kind of maybe under the table means or something like that. I just don't see how like a plausible way to get them out of the contract.

What I think is everybody's fears, I tend to agree with Chris that I don't think an extension is likely. Extensions do happen, whose Nets off signed an extension, Alexander Nikitian signed an extension, Kaprizov signed extensions, you know, they do happen. But I tend to find when the guy is clearly ready, they come because they want that next challenge, they want the opportunity. I saw a great quote from Chicago's director of amateur the other day where he said he wasn't overly concerned about Mitchcock coming.

Obviously, they're not in that discussion right now. So I think he was being able to put his cards out a little bit more. He said, he said he's a really competitive kid. I think he's going to want to come prove everybody wrong. You should have been in this discussion all along. That was in an article at the athletic with Scott Powers. So I think that part, I'm not overly concerned. Anything could happen.

but I feel like if he's at the point where I think he's going to be, which is not a guarantee, you know, in three years he's not killing in the KHL, maybe he does sign an extension. But if presuming he is an impact player helping them, maybe even lead Scott to a championship within the next three years, I presume he will want the next challenge to come over. The issue that I think is more relevant is whatever happens, you know, with the war and the geopolitical circumstances. You know, there's people who have raised a, you know, like the borders just aren't. you can't cross the borders anymore.

Because that's how I believe they're getting these kids out of Russia now is they have to go to Turkey or they have to go to Poland and go through those processes there. So, you know, are we rewinding the clock or you got to kind of like smuggle kids out of Russia? Essentially, I think those are the complicating factors that I think really worry teams, especially with a super high draft pick. And I'm no expert on this matter. I'm sure some stuff I just said right now is wrong. and people are going to tell me how wrong I was. But those are the things I think reasonably scared teams. But as of right now, as we record this podcast right now,

you can get players out of Russia. There have been like what, like 10, a dozen contract signed by NHL teams with Russian players after the KHL season just concluded and the contracts rolled over. So as the circumstances are right now with this war, you can get the players out. And there doesn't seem to be more than just more inconveniences than there were in the past. But who knows where we are in two years?

And I understand those risks. I appreciate those risks. And it's easy to be to say when it's not my job on the line, if you can't make that work and if you can't get him over. But I just think, like I said earlier, I think at some point the talent delta just becomes so massive. you know, you're not even talking about the same universe of player anymore. It's not about, oh, he's a little bit better, he's moderately better.

And I just think at some point it becomes ridiculous that even with all these risks, I think you owe it to your organization to your fans to take the player. And that is, I think, what it ultimately comes back to. I mean, every fan is going to look at it and certainly have the outlook that Chris was talking about. Okay, well, wait one extra year if it's that much more worth it. But as an owner, you probably need to make sure that your GM at least feels good enough about things, about their situation, that they can make that pick. And to Corey's point, there may be some GMs who just feel out of obligation, even if they're

not there. Maybe they need to be the one to make it. But it's a lot easier for us to say that. I always find it interesting when everyone tells me as an ownership decision, because, again, I've never owned a sports team, so I don't want to speak at a churn here. But I feel like if I was an owner, I would want the player. your time frame is much longer unless you know you're like an 80 or 90 year old owner or something like that which a lot of you know maybe but but if you unless you know if you have a long time frame typically as an owner

and don't you want what's best in the 10 15 20 year best interest of your organization I get the selling tickets I get you want them on the roster I get that but like I said you know at a certain caliber of player it's almost insignificant right? Like let's just say, you know, Ryan Leonard's in your roster in three years. What's he going to be realistically? Second line winger, third line winger. Is that really changing the calculus of your rebuild? Is that really changing, you know, your ticket sales? Are you really going to be winning playoff games now because he got on your roster one year earlier? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. All right. Chris, we'll close with you here. I know I'm going to give

you the billion dollar question here, but given what we just said, all the fascinating dynamics to it, where do you think on draft day, Matvei Mitchkoff ultimately goes? Yeah, I mean, I think it'll be interesting to see exactly how things shake out within that top six, because I think, I think, you know, Danny Breyer, you want to make a splash when you're with your first pick. I think that's the pick, you know, I mean, there might be better, there might be better organizational fits. Like if Ryan Leonard's there, I think it's a discussion. if Reinebocker's there, it's a discussion. You know, but, you know, I think you have to know that Washington's going to be right there behind you.

They're going to take him, probably. So, I mean, I think, you know, Danny Breyer didn't take this job being, we don't know what he's going to be like as a general manager. So this is a complete guess, but why not Philly? And you keep him out of the division, right? That way. If he actually takes him there, that's, he's in your division. Exactly.

Exactly. Exactly. Great stuff, guys. Awesome segment. I really appreciate the nuanced discussion there. We're going to take a quick break. You right back with a really good mailbag. All right to the mailbag. We're going to start with one from Hockey Skeptic who wants to know who do you think will be regarded as the best player from this draft in 10 years. And what would you make the odds for Baderd versus the field? Let's start with Chris on this. I think it's going to be Bader. And I mean, in terms of putting odds on it, you know, I mean, some, Some of it is obviously circumstantial too, right? You know, we'll see. I think I think Mitchcove is certainly a threat. I think that, you know, that that'll be, that'll be interesting to see that down the road. But, you know, I think that, you know, I'm fairly confident that Connor Bedard is going to go down as the best player from this draft based on everything we've seen from him.

You know, going to Chicago, it's going to be a while. I don't know, you think if you're a Blackhawks fan, you're going to have to continue to have some amount of patience. but, you know, I'm going to give him like 75% chance to be the best, the best player in this, in this, in this draft. Corey, Holger Stolzenberg wants to know, he says, during the 2020 draft, I kept reading story after story about how Germany was catching up to the rest of Europe with their youth development program. Yet here we are three years later after Stutzla, Reichland-Peturka with Little Sins. Are there any German prospects on the way? Yeah, I think what we saw with the German. in a couple of year run is kind of analogous to what we've seen with Slovakia these last

couple of years where I don't think you want to confuse a good stretch with something systemically changing it's possible something systemically changes but I think you want more than a couple of year period to conclude that definitively I mean we had a year where a Swiss player went first overall in Nico Hesier and in the subsequent years you have absolutely horrid Swiss age groups where you're just watching those U18 teams

and you're like just trying to find talent anywhere on the ice in some of those years. Now you've had some better years too like Lee ambitious for example. In terms of German players, it's been it's been tough.

I mean, we just saw their U18 team play a couple of times. I didn't see any really good underages on that team that I was really identifying as like high draft picks in the future. Anything is possible. And I've heard like some of their whatever the 07-08s might be talented but i haven't personally seen anybody that would rise to that level yet and i'm not convinced anything has systematically changed in their development system we are seeing the german men's team that made the semi-finals uh this week at world so there's

there's a little sign of uh overall progress for the german national again but on the backs of cider and j j j petrka and you know those those guys which were in that couple of year spend yeah for sure uh, Logan Horn wants to know, what are your thoughts on Tomalanders, meteoric rise following the U-18s? Is it an overreaction,

Chris, or just a correction after he went under the radar all year? Well, I mean, you know, we're always constantly evaluating players and, you know, I,

I would say that, that he was trending up before that. I mean, you know, not everybody's going to have rankings like every month. And, you know, certainly some of those may not reflect what's really going on in the industry anyway. But, you know,

I would say that the, the world under 18s was very validating. And so that was like, hey, okay, well, here it is. He's doing it now in a year where there's a lot of kind of tweener defensemen guys that might be first rounders. You know, I think that he showed there that there's a little more versatility to him, that there is, you know, the skating ability was so good. He was able to be used in all sorts of situations.

I don't think it's an overreaction. I think it's just a spike. It's no question a spike, but I think it's also part of the scarcity of defensemen, the maturity of his game, what he's shown so far. And then, you know, so it's not, it wasn't magically like here's the top 15 pick. Like, I think he was starting to trend towards first round, you know, and I think Corey was probably one of the earlier guys on on him as well in terms of, you know, getting him up the rankings. But, I mean, there was really, there was a lot of discussion even coming out of that November four nations tournament that, hey, we. this guy might be a thing. You know, he might be a guy that we got to keep a real close eye on for potential first

rounder. And then he just only continued to solidify that with his performances and, and really left a great lasting impression at the under 18 worlds. Yeah, I think he was 30 minutes in the gold medal game for Sweden. And I went back, he was on Rogla's J20 winning team and he played like 20, either 28 or 26 minutes in the final for that one, too. So you got this kind of winning elements that leads us into our next question from Maxwell Long, Corey, who projected to go out for the top five, do you believe will be the most

valuable playoff performers? I think Willander can be in that mix. I think when you talk to people in the league, I think they all point to Ryan Leonard as that kind of guy that they want in the playoffs. He might go in the top five, those who may not even qualify for this question. But he would be one that would come to mind. I think the way that Dahl Borda Vorski played at the U-18, I think you've got to, you know, think about him in terms of hard moments, you know, leverage moments. The way Braden Yeager played both at the

Hulinkogreski in the medal round games and in the playoffs where I think he, after a so-so year in production, he was nearly two points per game in the playoffs in the WHL. I think put a little bit of that maybe not amazing season concerns to rest. And I think Dimitri Simech had some of those elements too in his game. I thought he was really good in the playoffs

with Loco over in Russia. And I think if Daniel Boutte had stayed healthy, I think they would have had a chance to win that final series. Those are the main ones that come to mind for me. Chris, Saber's thoughts once enough, Anton Lindell is a good comparison for Delbor Dvorke. I don't think so. You know, I think that, I think Lindel was such a better defensive-minded center. I like Dvorsky. I think he's versatile. I think there's a lot of skill there. You know, I think going into the draft season of Lendell, I thought his two-way capabilities were, you know, superior to what Dvorsky has shown this season.

Not to say that he's not a good two-way center. I think he's definitely improved those elements of his game in a significant way this season that has allowed him to keep his same value. You know, so I think they're probably in the range, but I think that Lundell, you know, probably you could make a case that Dvorsky has more offensive pop, at least at the same. age, even though Lundell had shown, you know, he could produce and everything. But I think in terms of pure skill level, Dvorski has a little bit more of a dynamic element to him compared to Lundel. So I just think that they're kind of in opposite directions in terms of what they are. But I'd actually, I would actually be interested to hear what Corey thinks of this. I think the questioner is coming at it from the angle of similarly sized centers who are below average skaters. I think that's where

that's where this is coming from. I would tend to agree. I would have a high higher skill grade on Dvorsky, maybe a higher hockey sense grade on Lundell and maybe overall that I think both of them compete well. I think Lendell was such a polished all-around pro by that time. But I thought he could shoot the puck well. I thought D'Borkeg could shoot the puck well. I actually don't mind this as a comp. And, you know, you watch Lundell in the playoffs now at Florida.

I guess that, you know, it begs a question. You know, Lundell, I think is like really good at Florida. if you got Lundell at 6, 7, 8, are you happy with that pick there? Are you a satisfactory pick? Are you just okay with that there? Like, how would you feel about getting Lundell at that range of the draft? I think you're happy with it. I think at minimum, I think it's satisfactory, but I think you're pretty happy.

I didn't get a redraft. He's going right around 6, 7, 8, right? I tend to agree, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Next one, Corey, is from Nick Feelin, who says, what would you prefer to have in your system right now?

Lane Hudson or a top 15 pick in 2023, presumably he says, to use on a next-tier D-man, Sandy Pelico, Willander, et cetera. That's a really good question, obviously. We're talking about this on the time when Lane Hudson's just having an incredible last two weeks with USA's men's team, obviously great season overall at BU and looks like a great player.

It's a difficult question. because we've discussed Lane Hudson a lot on this podcast. Incredible skill, hockey sense, good skater. And these are all things you could have said a year ago, too. Nobody is, I think people knew he had offense. I don't think people knew who's going to be this good. And, you know, and, you know, show that level offense as a freshman right away versus men at the world. So it's a different degree of conversation.

I still think, you know, if you go a lot higher in a redraft, I think top 15. I don't think he would get quite that high in a redraft. I think you compare him to the toolkit of, say, a Tom Hollander. And I think it's a just, I think the other one just looks like an all day NHL defenseman with a lot of checks a lot of the boxes. I think him versus Sandine Pelica would be a really interesting discussion because there's not that much of a size difference there and they're offensively tilted players.

I'd be curious where Chris would fall on Hudson. Hudson versus Sandy Pelica? I think, I mean, I think Hudson is a much better player. I think that there's, I mean, he's just too unique of a talent. And we, I had him pretty high in last year's rankings and, you know, the size is the size. And certainly, you know, I think that Sandy Pelica might have. you know, he's he's a, he's a really good player. I mean, no question about it. But, you know, now that we have even more time to evaluate what Hudson has done, I mean, we're talking about a, you know, a special prospect that's still going to have to prove it at the NHL level. But to see what he's done at the World Championship, to see, you know, his historic production at the collegiate level, you know, the dynamic element that he brings, there's just really nobody like him. There's nobody that really looks like him. And I think that, you know, we've talked about Sandy and Pelica before is, good offensive player, you know, good hockey sense.

He makes a lot of good passes and good reads and things like that, but he doesn't have that dynamic skill set that I think is what separates Hudson. And, you know, I really feel like he's going to change, change the way. And he's not going to change the way we view all smaller defensemen, but I think he's going to show us a new way to play in the NHL. I really believe he's going to make it and be an impact player. Would you take him over Willander?

I would, yeah. One way to look at it, right, is like, you know, Hudson's last draft class, in a year, can you see Sandine Pelica doing what Hudson is doing right now at Worlds for the national team? No. No. Yeah. I think it's a really good question. I think it makes a really good point.

It's a good way of contextualizing Hudson's season. Habe's, exclamation point, wants to know how many D-Men do you think will be selected in the top 10, Chris? Seems like we always way under shoot it in the weeks before the draft. Actually, he didn't say way. I said way, but I stand by it. One. Ooh.

In the top 10? Yep. One. All right. Corey, do you want to weigh in on that one? I think the over and a half and I'll lean to there being two. I think somebody takes the Willander shot at some point. I can't tell you who and where.

I feel like when we discussed just the organizational needs, tendencies at six, seven, eight, nine, ten. I feel like somebody will get. that itch. I think it's at least two. Dylan H says, would love a comment on Carson Rakoff, watch a lot of Kitchener to see Mesaar, and you always sit out despite not being deployed with their best offensive players most night seems poised for a breakout in a larger role next year with the tools he has. I think there is a lot of interest in the league in this player, 6-2, good skater, good skill, has one of the best shots in the draft. I think the only really argument against him is consistency in his production, you know, is notably under a point for game. This

year with Kitchener, which is an ideal. You know, you watch some games. And what I would watch him this year is kind of like Cal and Richie, too, or you just didn't really notice them a ton during some nights. And some nights, you've kind of been, you're drawn into the toolkit and his, and its possible projection as a pro. I think he's going to be a relatively high draft pick. I think he could be a high second, possibly a late first, really.

just because I think that toolkit is just so appealing. Then he played well in that sweep kitchener made of the one seed winsor, which helped his draft stock as well. Next one is from Dean G. Who says, which draft eligible is projecting become power forwards outside of Fantilli? Not just big guys that have skill or small guys that play hard and physical. I'm talking about the big guys,

six one or over and have the potential to bring offense, physicality, toughness, and compete. Chris, any thoughts here on power forwards beyond Adam Fantilli? Yeah, I mean, I think one of the first guys that comes to mind is Charlie Stramel and, you know, his size package. He's a good skater. He's got, you know, he's got that physical element and just his frame and strength are, you know, pretty unmatched in terms of that. I think his skill is better than his numbers have shown. I, you know, I think that there's definitely some concerns on the hockey sense front based on what we saw this season and at various stages.

But, I mean, I still think that that's the kind of. the guy where, you know, the teams are going to take a chance on that athletic toolkit that he has as a potential power guy. You know, I think he's not over 6-1, but I still think that, you know, Ryan Leonard is is a 5-11 power forward. You know, he's, he's not a big guy. He's, he's just, you know, he's just really, he drives the net well. He's physical, you know, there's grit to him. And then, you know, he's got that speed and skill that we've seen throughout the season that just makes him tough to contain. You know, I think, I think to a certain extent as well, Matthew Wood is a power style forward. He's so good at the net front.

I mean, you know, he can score from distance, and he's not mean. Like, he's not physically, like, imposing all the time. But once he lowers the shoulder and tries to drive the net, he's a hard guy to knock off the puck. And I know a lot of teams are really impressed with his down low play, what he does beneath the faceoff, the faceoff dots. you know, to dig pucks out to make plays at the net front. So, you know, there's, there's a good, there's a good number of players in this, in this draft that, you know, have some power elements to them. You know, those are probably the three that, that jumped to mind more immediately just in terms of their overall toolkit. But, I mean, there's certainly no shortage of, of, of, of,

of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, I mean, you look, Samuel Hansick as well. I mean, there's just, there's a lot of guys with size that, that are going to be able to play a real physical game. That's why there are a lot of teams that, you know, when we talk about the Zach Bensons and the Gabe Perrauss and other, you know, there are going to be teams that, you know, maybe are going to lean towards the size when it's there in this draft. And one guy that I think towards the end of the year kind of embraced that role was Danny Nelson with the program too. Yeah. Ronda wants to know what range you see Cam Allen being drafted in Corey and what your thoughts are on him. She says she was hoping he could at least possibly last until the blues pick in the third round. But she may be being unrealistic. Obviously, a guy we were talking about, you know, as a first round pick coming into this season.

Yeah, I think third round is realistic. We just did a two-round mock with Scott and myself, and we didn't have him going in the top two rounds. And I think that is a realistic possibility. I'm going to have my full draft list publishing next week. And a part of the exercise I do is sending it around to scouts from feedback in the weeks leading up to when I publish it. And I kept consistently hearing from teams,

you got to get Cam Allen lower than where you have them, you know, pretty consistently. They just really had an unimpressive season for a lot of people. I just my process is I defer to guys who have really, really good underage seasons. They'd get a little bit more than the typical scout I talked to. Just going to, you had a really unoppressive season in Guelph, wasn't very good at the U18 Worlds, six-o defenseman, good and not great skater, not a ton of offense. It's not a great profile overall, but I still like to compete a lot. I think there is still some offense in there.

they really didn't show much puck-moving game at all throughout the course of the season. Yeah, I think he's a good player. I think third, fourth round is realistically where he's going to fall. But it's, like I said, I don't think there's a lot of love for him right now in the league. Wow. All right. And then we'll close with this one, which I thought was really interesting. Lane L. wants to know your thoughts.

We'll do both of you guys for this one on the penalty serving changes being introduced in the Champions Hockey League in Europe. These all feel like things that, like, you know, fans will talk about all the time as potential real changes. Sounds like Champions League is going to initiate them. Minor penalties dealt the same as major, so basically you're on the penalty kill the whole time as long as you have penalty. You don't get out of the box just because the team with the PowerPlay scored. You still serve a penalty if the other team scores while it's a delayed call. And if you score shorthanded, then you get out of the box early. The Power Play no longer continues.

Thoughts on the Champions League trying these. I think it's, you know, it's certainly an interesting idea. It'll be fun to see how it works there. I think, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the minor being, you know, score as many times as you want in the minor. The other two, absolutely, I like. So, you know, I think that those, the, the encouragement of pushing a penalty-killing team to go and score is a great thing. But, you know, just the reason, especially now, and I think that the, the, having it as a major also incentivizes you to try to score and get it done. It just, it just kind of, to me, it kind of devalues the major in the end to a certain extent.

I think part of the, the added benefit of the major and the added deterrent to a major is that you, you know, you're, you're not just shorthanded for, for a period of time until they score. You're shorthanded for as much. and that can really change the tide of games. So I think that first one is overkill. The other two are fine. I like the rules. I really like any rules we can install to try and add more offense, more scoring chances into a game.

Like Chris said, it gives incentives, particularly the last rule for a team that is shorthanded to not just try and shoot puck downs, but if they see an opportunity to try and take the puck down the ice and get a scoring chance, obviously within reason without changing the structure of the game too much. But I like the fact that we're trying to create more offense with these rules and hope it gets implemented in other European leagues and maybe one day into the NHL.

Because my biggest pet peeve of where hockey is right now, where the NHL is right now, is the state of video review. I hate video review, not because I'm like an old man yelling at clouds that, you know, the video reviews, the concept is bad. but I hate that we've installed this system in a sport where we have so few goals begin with, we somehow have created this mechanism to take away a bunch of goals. And there was nothing that was installed in its place to make sure that we actually get more goals. I just, I just hate that.

I hate that we have to stop the game to look for like that micro second offside and take away goals. I just, I hate it. And I feel like we need to rethink that and try to find things that are ways so that the obvious calls get made and make sure the right calls made, but that we're not trying to take away excitement and the big moments of a hockey game for like little tiki-tack shit. I'm also not sure that there's demonstrably less controversy after the video review either. I'm not sure that even when we do go to the replay, I'm not sure everyone's satisfied that the call was always right.

I think that's interesting. My question is how this would affect how games are officiated because maybe there's some idea that this is this is a disincentive for players to take penalties, basically, right? But it could just be a disincentive for officials to call penalties because they don't want to overly influence a game. Yeah, that's a really good point. And you see it in the playoffs every year.

Yeah. The other thing I'd say, too, is the amount of power plays destroy flow. Like, I know we want to, I know we want to increase offense, but it's like, you know, power plays in general are. like it's one-sided. There's not a lot of back-and-forth. You know, I mean, I would prefer. And maybe this will also, if they do de-incentivize referees to call penalties because of this,

you know, then maybe it'll be fine. But yeah, but I mean, I, the thing is, is I am, I have zero problem with them trying it. That's the thing. It's like, I want to see it in action. I want to see how it impacts the game. You know, I mean, there have been a lot of things that have been tried in, you know, the ECHL or the AHL first and then they eventually do come to the NHL. This is a chance to go see it, you know, in a different, completely different settings,

see how it impacts games. And then you can kind of start making those decisions. But yeah, so I, I want to see it in action. I don't want to, you know, just say this, this sucks and I hate it because I don't know. We, you know, I thought hybrid icing was going to get called improperly for a long time as well. And it was for a little bit, but it's a good thing now, fewer injuries. So, I mean, there's a lot of different things. that can change. So I'm looking forward to seeing how it works. But yeah, one thing is,

is like, you know, I like to see a game that flows and there's back and forth to it. And we'll see if this impacts that at all as well. It is ultimately free market research. And that's probably the big advantage of it, right? So remember like when we had a, when Brandon Shannon was in the league and they had like that, that preseason experimentation process where they tried a bunch of new rules and processes. It's a little frustrating that that we don't get that from the NHL. much anymore, right? I'm, yeah, maybe a little bit. Remember they were using prospects, though?

And like, those guys already, I, I'm like a big proponent for trying to tamp down on the amount of pressure we put on draft eligible prospects in a season or undraft, our drafted players, just because I was like, I saw that and there's like, they have this, they have the World Junior Camp, they have rookie camp, they have development camp, It's like all these things, but I think that we should have that back. Just bring it with different players. Good stuff, guys. That's going to do it for us today.

Thanks for listening to this episode of The Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. You can follow us on YouTube at YouTube.com slash at The Athletic Hockey Show. You can catch more of Chris over at Flohockey and his podcast Talking Hockey Sense. And right now, you get a one year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month. And you visit theathletic.com slash hockey show. We'll talk you soon. Thank you.