The Athletic Hockey Show - NHL Draft 2022: What did we get wrong?

Episode Date: August 26, 2026

It’s been four years since the 2022 NHL Draft took place at the Bell Centre in Montreal, where the hometown Canadiens drafted Slovakian winger Juraj Slafkovsky first overall. On today’s episode, the guys revisit how the draft played out and discuss the risers, the biggest misses, and where, in hindsight, players like Logan Cooley, Lane Hutson, and Shane Wright should have been picked.Hosts: Max Bultman and Corey PronmanExecutive Producer: Chris FlanneryProducer: Chris FlanneryWatch full episodes on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowJoin our Discord Server: https://discord.gg/VTm9VjkFSubscribe to The Athletic: https://theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Hey, everybody, Max Boltman here alongside the athletics, Corey Pranman, for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Today we are zeroing in on the 2022 NHL draft, Corey, and it's an interesting one. We have another redrafts episode here that'll cover the 2023, 24, and 25 drafts. But 22 is kind of rich with things to talk about. There's lessons to be learned here.

There's some really notable picks here. Let's start right at the top with your ice left. And I remember on draft night, even the morning of the draft, it was still a very contentious topic to even theorize that the Montreal Canadians were going to take Uri Slavkovsky. You, as of the week of the draft, we're pretty confident in it. But there was a lot of hemming and hoeing over it, partly because we knew so much about Shane Wright, and we didn't know that much about Yerislevkovsky. Four years later here, Yerislovsky is not just the number one player in your redraft. He's number one in a tier of his own. Yeah, and that's for multiple reasons.

it's the athleticism, the big body who can skate. It's the high degree of physicality. He brings to a game. He's big. He's very strong. He plays hard. He can win a lot of puck battles. He's gray around the net and along the boards.

And he has a lot of skill. I don't think, I think at the draft, and I still think it remains true today. He's not the most elite playmaker, elite hockey sense guy. He's not a game breaker like a Logan Cule is with the puck. but he still has a high skill level he can make difficult plays you know a point per game player this year in the NHL to go with that really unique set of athletic traits and that to me like you know is a very

rare type of player to find even on the wing you know it's the rare power winger you know if you want to use a label who can score and that to me I think justifies him at the on one spot, even though it's not, like, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest Logan Cooley there, because he's a center. I think he could be a number one center. But as of now, I would lean Slavkovsky.

Is there a scouting lesson? I mean, in a lot of ways, Slavkovsky is the kind of player that always draws the eyes of scouts. He's skilled, he's big, he can move. He had 10 points in his draft year. And I remember that that was a big hang up for people. It's like, can you really use the number one overall pick on a guy who just had 10 points? Is there a lesson to be learned in any of this? It's a very interesting set of circumstances.

Because I think often what happens is you have a player who has a great club season. And then he has really bad international performances. And the question always becomes like, how much do you rate these international tournaments versus a good club year? But what is the other way around? I think people's instinct is always don't put too much emphasis on a couple of international games, although this is way more than a couple

in Slefkov. These cases, we'll get to that. And just focused on the club season. But if you had just focused on the club season, you would have been dramatically off on Slefkoffsky's evaluation. Whereas his international performance where he was one of the best players

at the Link of Gretzky, he was one of the best players at the Olympics, he was one of the best forwards of the Men's World Championship, the world juniors they got canceled. He was quite good in those couple of games. So you're talking about, about now, like 20, 25 international games where he played in a very high level, which that's

got to be close to the amount of league of games he played that season. So I think it's a very interesting balancing act there. And I think it's been reasonable to say he's somewhere in the middle. He's not like this superstar prospect, but he also wasn't an average prospect who was just fine at the pro level. He was, you know, an excellent prospect, not the same. sexiest number one overall. You know, if you did a ranking of one overall picks, he's, you know, towards the bottom end of the last 10 years. But he's, I think, a very deserving number one, you know, and he's still number one in this draft class for me. It comes out to be a really defining draft for Montreal because they get number one, Ureslovsky, and they get in the second

round, Lane Hudson, who's the number three player on your redraft. And I'm sure that there are Canadians fans out there listening to this, thinking that the order of those two guys could be reversed here because Lane Hudson has been such an important piece on that blue line. But I do think the Olympic factor of what, you know, what Yerislovsky has looked like in some of the biggest competition, the biggest games, it does underscore why you value his archetype so much. Like, it's, Lane Hudson's point totals are incredible. He's an awesome player. I thought he had a phenomenal playoffs.

But players like Yerislevkovsky are just as rare, in my opinion, in the modern an NHL as that elite puck-moving defensemen. Yeah, I just feel like with Slavkovsky, when the whistles get put away and the game gets really fast, that's the kind of player that can really take over. And I know he hasn't taken over in the NHL playoffs yet, but I think that's the kind of guy that you envision doing that. And like you said, he has done it in big games, such as the recent Winter Olympics. Yeah.

looking at the very top few tiers of this redraft, Corey, it was a little bit of a blast from the past to a time where everything was littered with NTDP kids. Logan Cooley's at number two. Lane Hudson's at number three. Cudder Goethe is at number four. Jimmy Snuggaford's at number five. Frank Nazar at number six. Those are actually the top four tiers. So it's Slavkovsky in a tier of its own and then three full tiers that are all NCDP kids, five of the top six here. We don't really see.

We haven't seen that in the last few. draft classes. And I wonder, like, what does that say to you, if anything, is there, is there a conversation to be had here about the NTDP? And I wonder when we're going to see it next, because I think that's always kind of been a political tension point with NTP is, one thing you're going to see a common thread there is, is that Frank Nazar, Jimmy Snuggarood, and Lane Hudson were on the second power play unit on that NTP team. They were, the first power play was Cooley, Gochier. McGority.

Magrorty in the bumper. Seamus Casey ran the point. Ike Howard, I would think. No, it was like the Bruins, like, their sixth round pick that year. I forgot who the guy was. Cole Spicer. Okay.

He ran. He was the net on the first power play. The second power play was Howard, Snuggarood, Hudson. Nazar and Stramel. Pretty good. Yeah, no, it was an amazing team. It was amazing they didn't win the U-A teams that year. To be perfectly honest, they were upset,

despite outplaying Sweden pretty significantly in that gold medal game. Matias Havlet. And that was the Oseland-Lekaramaki. Yeah, that was, not Patius Havill, whatever the goalie Havlet is, that had that monster gold medal game. Hugo, Havlet. Hugo, yes.

And yes, that was the Ocelan, Lekaramaki. or Macchi Ogren group. But yeah, so you always kind of find talking to coaches, agents, etc. That's always an issue with the NPDP is who gets promised that first power play time, who gets promised the prime opportunities. And when that was the best avenue

to develop yourself for college hockey as an American prospect, it was always very political. But now you're seeing a lot of kids just say, well, if I'm not getting that guarantee, I'm out. And I'm just going to go play CHL. So I do wonder when we see that next truly loaded US NTP team again, quite frankly. Let's talk about, you know, we addressed Hudson, but Jimmy Snuggler was another guy who was not thought to be in the same level as some of the names that we've mentioned there.

By the end of the draft class, Cutter Gautier, I mean, obviously, goes fifth overall. But he had worked his way firmly into the top 10 conversation. Cooley was there all along. McGority was at the fringes of it for quite a while. And Frank Nazar even was there. I mean, the Red Wings had the eighth pick that year, and I definitely remember there being a lot of talk about should they take Frank Nazer there. Jimmy Snuggard, I don't think was really ever in that range.

And yet here he is, as we look back four years later, he's number five on your redraft. And he was a top line guy on that team. He played on the wing with Kooley and Gochier. The concern with him was always down to skating. And I think, well, he's shown a little bit more offense than people expected of him when he turned pro. and even at the college level. I don't think he's shown dramatically more offense than people expected.

I think it was the combination of his compete being way better. I think people always liked his compete, but it was like, okay, this is not just pretty good offense and pretty good compete. It's really, he's really competitive. He's really strong on pucks, and he makes way more plays than we expected. I think that combination has led to the success

that he's had at higher levels, despite the below average foot speed. Shane Wright, we mentioned earlier in the show. We knew his name for years before this draft. He was the kind of presumptive number one pick up until really the week of the draft. And for some people, into the draft, until that name was called. It's interesting to see kind of how his career has developed here. Because when the fall happens on draft night and then his career doesn't get off to a running start necessarily,

I almost think people maybe swung a little too far the other way on Shane Wright, that he's, you know, tracking in this really downward direction. He's number seven on this list. And he still projects as a pretty strong big minute center here for you. But, you know, as we hear his name in trade rumors, it's just kind of an interesting state of Shane Wright moment right now. Yeah.

And let's kind of turn back the clock to what he was looking like in his draft year. He had a good draft year. He didn't have a great draft year. He was still one of the better forwards in the OHL, though. Still was pretty productive. But if you, recall when you go back to his draft, the projection was Patrice Bershryl. That was the name. People were throwing around a lot. And I think you might remember we had this conversation four

years ago. It's hard to remember everything we said four years ago. But I do remember this conversation four years ago. That I said, there's a reason that Bergeron went in the second round is that he didn't have the sexiest toolkit. You know, he wasn't that big. He was, he's a good, like writes a good skater, not an amazing skater. Bergeron was never considered to be this dynamic score. So despite his great hockey sense, his great competitiveness, and that those traits were not just really good, but elite special was kind of where he was underrated.

You know, trying to project, when you're projecting 17-year-olds into the NHL, you'd like the tools to be a little louder, especially when you're picking in the top five. If you want to pick the super smart two-way guy in the 20s, I support that. The first thing you tell me about a center in the top five is how good a defensive player he is. Like, that's not the first thing I want to hear in the top five. I want to hear how he's got elite skill.

I want to hear how he's got elite skating. I want to hear how he's a freak athlete. Like that's those are the things that get me excited. So right away, that was a risk factor there. Second thing was in his draft year, I brought up numerous times. You didn't have those moments, games, stretches of games where you could say he really took over. Another red flag, which again, with the not sexy toolkit, like that, these were concerns. And I still had him read very high.

And I still think he's going to be a good NHL player. He could be like a long-term third-line centerman. But it is really, I think. an interesting lesson in how projection works. You know, you, it's great to use these comps like a Bergeron, but it really has to light up. I'm not even sure that Wright was ever that elite defensively in junior.

I think he was a good two-way player. I don't think anyone ever watched him and thought his compete was more questioned by teams than it was considered an elite trait. Yeah. This has been one of my biggest lessons in the time since I've been doing this show with you and started watching prospects more is I think I had this. When I was looking for comps, I think you often kind of start with the point totals. What kind of production range is he going to be in? And the trap that I fell into and to some extent still do sometimes is that when I see a great defensive player, I immediately start comparing him to the best defensive players.

And often the best defensive players don't have that high point totals and suddenly it can seem very attainable. So you look at like an Anthony Sorrelli, who's often squirrelly. who's often scored in the 40-50 point range, and you see a center who you think is going to score in the 40-50 point range, and I had this with a guy we'll talk about in a second, Marco Casper. I went, okay, so he's going to be Anthony Sorrelli, and that's a Selke finalist type. But the bar between a good defender and a Selke finalist,

Selky top five player is still significant. And it's sometimes just as significant as the gap between a 50-point player and a 70-point player. And So really, another guy who went third round, not top five. Exactly, right? And William Carlson, right, It's kind of would be another one that I would compare Casper to and have. But your point is so spot on about like when you see a center that high in the draft,

the two way is a selling point for me. And I think it always should be, like if you're good defensively. But I do get your point that you don't want it to be the first thing you're saying. You want there to be a carrying trait. And oh, by the way, he's really good at this. So there's this really good floor. But you want to be dazzled by whether it's skill. I think smarts would be the thing I would value most in a center, right?

Like Leo Carlson and Anton Frundel, I think, are really good defensive players. But there's a real offensive savvy to both of those guys. That's the first thing. And in Frundel's case, the shot, that's the first thing you're going to tell me about. Yeah, even a guy like a Barcov, who obviously is at the elite, elite parts that his skill his high high. Yeah, he was an 80-point player. Yeah.

So, like, there was more to him than just, oh, he's a good two-way player. He was drafted by Florida in part because he had a ton of skill, a ton of playmaking in his game, too. Yeah. All right. So I mentioned Casper. So he's one that obviously I see every day. But I get why you dropped him from where he was drafted here. It was a tough year last year.

He had 19 points. I was surprised at how low he ended up here for you. And he's at number 17 for you. And I think some of the names that surprised me to see ahead of him, Yuri Kulik, Lik, Yanni Neiman, Reed Schaefer. These are all guys who haven't come up and produced that much in the NHL. Connor Geeky even, I know there's a little different physical profile there, hasn't really come up and produced in the NHL.

I'm curious like why does Casper, and it's all one tier, but why does he lag behind them for you? Yeah, there's that group there of Schaefer, McRordy, Neiman. They all kind of like fit the same with their profile of below average skaters, but big bodies. In case of McRordy and Schaefer, elite compete. And in the case of Neiman, a guy who scored at a significant pace and at every level he's ever played at, you know, especially versus men. I just think those are guys that have chances to be top six forwards, and I kind of think with Casper, I'm viewing him more as a third line, or I'm not even sure it's a third line center now, quite frankly.

He might be a third line center. We'll see it with time. But that's kind of where the small delineations were, but something I always say. Like if we were in a room and you were really passionate him up getting Casper over those guys, I think it's really close. Like it's a big clump of guys there at that point, essentially. Kooleach, I think, when he's healthy, which I, everything that seems to be pointing to the fact that he is healthy now. Like, he looked like a really impactful young player there for Buffalo when he was going.

So I'm kind of putting in there that his health is fine, but obviously if his health isn't fine, then that's a whole separate issue. But that's kind of the crux of where I fell on those guys. Like, McGroher had a great year in the American League. Same thing with Neiman. Schaefer was really good down there, too. like any elite he's elite physicality to his game as well like I think those guys like there's a lot of projection there obviously Connor geeky where I have him too I have him in the top 10 he had a monster year in the American league there's still four years that's kind of funny because it's a funny time to be doing this

kind of exercise because I think you're still in the middle of things having played out and the draft having distinguished yourself with those especially with those top couple of players but then there's still some projection left and even even for the guys who have made the NHL, like Casper, like Minchikov, like San Renzel, like there's still some remains to be seen in terms of what they ultimately become. Yeah, my gut is that this year, I mean, last year, Casper's production was rough, but the shooting percentages were all weird. I mean, the expect the goals numbers say he actually should have generated more than he did

as a rookie. And I thought that was, my guess is he's going to end up in the 40s this year and he's going to play a top six center role for the Red Wings. It obviously helps. I don't know that he's going to be able to sell. stay playing a top six center role for his whole career. And I think that's kind of your point is, yeah, he might, you know, might end up settling into a third line center role.

But I think if he does, it will be along the lines of like one of those true top three Cs. And he's played on the wing. I get your point there too. But my gut is he's going to have a pretty big bounce back this year. But we'll have to see. You mentioned Mitchikov. And he's another guy who, the arrow's been kind of all over the place for him. I think a year or two out from this draft, he was seven, eight top players in this class.

It hasn't gone quite that way since for him. And he kind of is a good window into talking about some of the defensemen of this crop. I mean, Simon Nemitz went two. He comes in at number 10 on your list, just got the big contract in Calgary. It looks like things are kind of trending back in the right direction for him. Matechuk right behind him, Leon Bischel at 12. But David Urecheck, who went, I think, five or six in this class, six I believe, to Columbus, not in your top 25. Sam Renzel has kind of worked his way, but he's 20.

Minchikov's at 19. There's still a lot to be figured from this blue line group. Yeah. I mean, I think all four of those defendants in the win in the top 10, Nemich at two, the New York check. He went six, Minchikov, 10, Kortchinsky. I don't know if any of those teams are really thrilled with any of those draft picks. I think, you know, Minchikov, I think they're somewhat satisfied with it,

but probably not jumping up and down about it. And Nemich, obviously, is a good player. I don't think he was a great player, but he's a pretty good player, and obviously he just got traded by the team that picked him second overall. It's, I think people always view it as the riskier position to draft, and I don't think that's always true. I think generally if you look at where teams get premier defensemen from, tends to be from the draft,

but it's a data point towards that argument that if it's close, take the forward. Yeah, and I wonder for the devils. I mean, I don't remember what we were saying about. that pick at the time. Logan Cooley, there was kind of some rhyme with Jack Hughes, but even on the other side of things, did they need a defenseman? Yeah, I think we were always talking about how they had Hesier

and they had Jack Hughes, and do they really need another center? I think that was an argument. I think it was, I don't think we were surprised at Duket defensemen. I think there was definitely some conversation about even if they didn't love Wright, like you could have still fit Wright or Cooley on the wing

or something like that. And I don't know that their four group is so good right now. four years later that you're like, oh, they could, they could have gone without Logan Cooley or Shane Wright. Like, I don't think we're quite at that level either. Well, and we've seen Jack flex out to the wing too, right? And if you have Logan Cooley there, and now maybe you're flexing Jack to play with Heeshire, because I don't know if Jack and Cooley on a line together necessarily works with the size. But they're super fast. They're

super creative. Cooley really competes. And Jack, I mean, hey, he played through quite a bit to win that gold medal there. So it is interesting to go back. Like, I wonder if that'll kind of inform how I view some positional overlap stuff in the future because I don't remember the feeling like they needed a defenseman because they had just taken Luke the year before so I don't know that they needed anything. I think we were viewing this like a just kind of a coup

for them to be in the top two but... And I do remember when they took Nemich and then Casey, I remember looking at the situation being like, man, that's a log jam waiting to happen. And it felt like years in the making and you always kind of wondered if Nemich would break through and find its way to be like this big

two way, big minutes, two way guy as opposed to the power play one guy and never really quite happened in New Jersey. And Casey, who I think is just an okay prospect is kind of still in the minors right now. All right. A few other risers that I wanted to hit just really quick here. Tristan Luno goes, we talked about Hudson at the top. Obviously, that's the biggest rising, you know, arrow up player of this class. But Tristan Luno went 53.

He's 21 on this list. Sandusville Manus was, I think, after pick 150. He's now 26th on your list. Like these are some big risers. Yeah, Luno was a guy who was projected as a first rounder coming into the year. He had a tough draft year, skating, defense, concerned teams. But I think he's shown over time that his defense can be just good enough to go with really good offense.

I think he's going to play in the NHL full time this season, so we'll see how he does. And then Villanis was a really tricky one. He had a great U.A. team worlds that year, play Latvian who played in Sweden. I think that's kind of a common theme by starting to hear from NHL people. when somebody comes over from a foreign nation to another European nation like Slavkovsky did going from Slovakia into Finland, there could be some struggles initially, and so Thelma's production wasn't great. But I think over time, you've seen him develop into this really good two-way player,

a guy who's not ever going to play with a senior team like he did at this past Olympics or mensuel championships. He looks really good for Team Latvia, good skater, good compete, good enough skill, potentially be a middle six wing for Florida. Anything you want to say about Hudson? I mean, I guess I've been kind of skimming through this, but he is maybe the story of this class. Yeah, he is the biggest riser.

He's the biggest, if you look at terms of where I had guys rated, I think I had him in the mid-20s to where I finished. I think he's probably the biggest swing in terms of how much his rating has changed. And one of the most fascinating data points in terms of, you know, players we've evaluated over the last few years because, like I said, it's crazy to think he wasn't even running the NTP power play in his draft year.

Considering the level of offense, he's now shown that we were debating him a few weeks ago but whether he should run the next World Cup power play. And I don't think it's an unreasonable argument. We didn't agree on it, but it's not unreasonable. You look at this production. He's one of the top producing U.S. defensemen

in the NHL right now. He has elite offense. He has elite skill, elite hockey sense. Now, here's where it's going to get tricky, is I think people will look at Hudson and be like, you should just take the swing on the skill. Yeah. They just swing on skill. It's just that simple. So let's presume that if you drafted a guy in the top two rounds, who's five foot 11 or shorter,

you're primarily drafting them for skill, right? Is that fair to say? Skill and probably skating, shiftyness. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So let's look at all the guys who are five, 11 or. shorter drafted before Hudson.

Just that just, just, uh, just, uh, to go through this exercise. We're going to go past Cooley because he was a top five pick. So I think Casey was drafted before him, was he or was Casey right after? He was before. We'll get through this. I'm going to rattle them off real quick. Okay. Because I've, because I've done this before already.

Matt Savoy and nine, did it to Betayshaka 12. Frank Nazar 13. They've all, those all end up being pretty good at all those Savoy is kind of like a bottom six guy. Lakeramaki at 15 Noah Osslyn is 16 Kimmel at 17 Ocelin's really the only one tracking right now

Lekker Mackey and Kimmel holding on for dear life Philip Meishar first round pick by Montreal looks like a miss Isaac Howard 31 he's kind of just holding on right now Owen Beck 33 by Montreal he looks like potential bottom six guy Furkis 35 by Seattle

he's doing just okay Paul Lewinsky, 39 by Chicago. He looks like a miss. Dylan James, Florida, 40 to Detroit. It looks okay. Right now, is that fair to say? Yeah. He did all four years of college, so now he's in the H.L.

I think there's still a pretty big question mark there. Yeah. Now we get to some small defense men, San Jose, 45, Havlet. He looks like a miss. Casey, 46. New Jersey, he's hanging on. 47 Hunter Hates, Minnesota. He's just hanging on.

Christian Kairu, 50 small, high-scale defenseman. He looks like a miss. Jack Hughes, 51. L.A. looks like a miss. Detroit, 52. Buchelnikov looks like a miss. Boston, 54.

Poitra. He looks fine. Looks like he might play some games. Seattle, 61. Goyette looks like a miss. And then you get to Hudson at 62. So he's like, what, the 15th small player? I think you might have said more than 15 there.

But my point was it wasn't like, these other teams avoid its skill. I think the issues with Hudson where his skating were perceived as an issue. So you look at guys like, yeah, you look at guys like Havlin, you look at guys like Casey, they were considered better skaters.

So now whether that's true or not, whenever I mentioned Hudson skating, the internet goes all freaking berserk about this because, but that was the concern back then. It's why on top of his size, he fell to the late second round. So it's interesting, and there's a lot layers here.

One of Scott's things that he talks about often is how like sometimes our terminology is too broad. And Hudson, I think is a good example of that. So like Hudson is not a necessarily straight line speed player. He does have, I think, very good edges. And I remember having that conversation about Lane. What I think gets lost in all of this. And our show has become such a flashpoint for Hudson debate.

And I get it. I think unanimously, everyone on our show had Lane Hudson as a first round talent. In fact, I think we had him in the 20s. And I think there was a flashpoint. reason that we had him is that is I think he was able to kind of be assertive and enforce his will on games as a junior player. And we thought that that would help him outperform what is usually expected of a guy of his size and speed. But that to me is actually another area where he has outperformed because I think his compete, if I thought was like good for a 5-9 player, I actually think even higher of it now. I think higher of his skating now than I did at the time.

And those are areas that I remember us defending and saying he should be in the first round back in 2022. Well, I think I'm sending it to you right now. This is my draft grade analysis from the day, 2022. Montreal was the only team that got an A-plus. I said, I think they got at least two or three NHL players and ones who could be difference makers. Now, I thought, I thought Meshire was really good. I loved him, so I support him as a late first.

That was way off, obviously. But, yeah, I mean, we, I love their draft. And I think where this got off the rails was that, after his college years that I didn't like instantly jump on. Oh, he's elite. He's amazing. Like I did the same thing with Adam Fox for what it's worth. Like I wasn't ready to say Norris trophy winner after his college years either.

And maybe that's an adjustment I'd have to make in terms of projecting players to the next level. But yeah, I've never not thought he wasn't a really good prospect. I actually think coming into his draft year, I could look this up. I think I had him like top 10 or whatever coming. like in one of my first rankings or whatever. So this has always been a guy I've, you know, been high on it and liked a lot. But I think it's, yeah, like I said,

there were some serious risk variables there. And I think there were, I think there were some serious questions by people on like, is this, everyone knew he had a lot of offense. But I think there were some questions on, is this like special five nine guy offense. I think one of the things too is like, we all enjoy watching the kind of hockey lane hudson plays.

And so when we see it, We're like more of this, more of this, right? Fans feel that way. I feel that way watching Lane Hudson play. It's like, man, this is exciting to watch. It misses a lot, too. It's not like you can just see players. First of all, there's not a lot of players who are actually like Lane Hudson,

but guys who you could sketch out kind of that profile. Like, we've talked about Adam Bokevist. Axel Sandian Pelica is a guy who had like record setting production in the SHL, at least threatened the records. I thought Scott did some real revisionist history when we brought up Bocke's the other day. That guy was dynamic. Like he was like a,

attack attack high end skill high end hockey sense he looked special offensively like it's it's real easy to just skim past that one and say always like ty like ryan murkley looks special tie smith looked really talented like it's it's it's real easy to pretend that you didn't think the same thing about some other players i just think team and teams like teams drafted those guys really high adam bocvis was a top 10 pick like tie smith and pelica went in the teens Pelica is still early, we'll see what happens. But I'm just saying, like, even when you have that, like, ridiculous production at the lower levels, it doing it in the NHL does just take a completely different gear.

And Lane turned out to have it. But I don't know that you can really see who's going to have that gear from that profile until you've tested it. And the difference is not only that I think the offense is not only really, we always thought was really good at special, is that he ended up being a better defender, I think, than what people thought. Like, he's still not an elite defender by any means, but he competes really hard. Yes. Both of those guys that did not apply for. Bofus Smith, Merkley, even Sandin Pelka right now, we'll see how it goes. All those guys are ones where you have questions on the defense. And ironically, the reason Sadie Pelica was able to go in the teens and Hudson wasn't is because Stanyan Pelica's compete as a prospect was like a real selling point because he throws his body around. And two inches taller. we'll see how all that goes. My point is not to, you know, close the book on any of these guys,

although some of, you know, Merkley, Smith, the book's pretty closed on. But all I'm trying to say is like, we all, I think, like the idea of this player type. And to the extent that there's skepticism, it's not because we don't think there's any of them. It's that it's very hard to identify which of the guys that wow you at lower levels. Who was the Finn a couple years ago? Aaron Kivie Har are you, right? Like a year out from his draft, you could have said he's going to be one of these guys. But each step up, it's a totally new test. And it can really go off the rails. I was talking to one scout going into the draft this year because the name Ryan Lynn came up and Villeneuve and we're talking about the talk about these small

defensemen. He made a really good point to me. He's like, you know, these players just can't be 70% of what Lane Hudson is. That's right. You know, with these player types, Macar, Hughes, etc., they've either got to be that or the coach isn't going to play them. Whereas when you take a six-four defenseman who can skate and make a first pass, there's a variety of rules for for them to play. Some of them can even run a power play. They may not be your preference, but they can do it. They can make the five foot pass to the left, the five foot pass to the right, the skate up, the drop pass. Like there's some stuff that's, if you have a decent skill level, you can still do it, even if not the highest levels, but then they can be second,

second pair, third pair, penalty kill, etc. The small defenseman pretty much has one rule he could fill in an NHL team, at least on a winning NHL team. Jared Spurgeon, kind of the guy it's like, but his defense, I think, is like way out punches his size, right? And so it's like, that's what I think to go back to our conversation about like the centers. Well, you remember how there's always a brain point in every draft. I hear about Jared Spurgeon in every draft too. Yeah, exactly. And so you just have to be really careful.

Like that's the analog to what I was talking about with the centers earlier, where you start going, okay, 50 points, but he defends well, he must be Anthony Sorrelli. Well, if it's, you know, 40 points and he defends pretty well, he's going to be Jared Spurgeon. Maybe. Or maybe it's going to flame out and go a very different direction. very fast. I mean, Seamus Casey still hasn't really gotten his full foothold. And to your point, he was playing PP1 over Lane Hudson at the NTDP. I really like Seamus Casey. I've been a guy thinking Seamus Casey is going to get a shot somewhere and it's going to work. We're still kind of waiting for it. Yeah, he might have to, he might have waivers this fall and we'll see if somebody gives him a shot

or not. But yeah, it's, it's tough. I mean, you're going to see this now with like Brock Cripps this coming summer. It's a very similar profile to someone like Ryan Lynn, you know, is that the Does he get comp to the same type of players? It's, I think when I talk to people in the league, I think they view risk a lot differently than the public does. I think they view the risks in every draft pick at a much higher level. And I think often there's a conversation about how this can go wrong. And I think everyone always wants to hear about how it's going to go right.

But for when you're in this feat, field where most picks go wrong and most picks don't end up being what you expect them to. I think whether this is right, whether there's the right way to do things or it isn't. I think a lot of people will often look at these draft picks with the perspective of how is this going to screw us or what could possibly go wrong here. So I at least appreciate when it's their jobs on the line, not mine. If you and I misadvaluate Lane Hudson or one of these big defense, but whatever.

We're not going to get fired. Well, I don't think anyways. I can get fired. Maybe I will. Anyways. But that's not, some people won't be fired for overlaying Hudson.

That's a whole other issue. But my point is, I can at least appreciate why, if you're a general manager, you probably get, what, five to seven first round picks over the course of your career. Yep.

I can understand why you want to make sure you are very confident those picks are going to hit. Is it fair to say, though, like not all first-round picks are created equal. So, like, I don't have a problem with teams applying that, like, really risk management kind of approach in the top 12, let's say.

But once you're into the late teens and especially once you're in the 20s, that's where, like, I remember arguing for Lane Hudson in the 20s that year because it's like, there's at least a chance here that he's going to be awesome. And at the 20s, like, there's a chance that the guy you take doesn't even play anyway. Like, even the safe guy that you take might not play in the 20s. Well, Montreal took a guy in the 20s, he ended up not playing. That's right. That's right.

another guy in the 30s. So like Owen Beck was like that's supposed to be the safe profile, right? This like good two-way center. And I think he could be like a fourth liner in the NHL still who's like kills penalties and whatnot. But I get what you're saying. Listen, I had Hudson pretty high. So there would have been a point there. Yeah. Late first, high second where I would have supported that shot. But I can understand why people didn't have him top 15, top 20. Because that range is usually what you think of more of like the sure things. Yeah. Now, that's. I think the issue is not that they didn't have him top 15, top 20, is that they didn't have him top 50 or top 40, that they thought this profile is just so beyond risky and the offense is so not special, just pretty good, that he deserves to be in this bucket way below everybody else. That was, I think, the multiple errors that were made in regards to him.

The name that you said when you were reading that list, that really was Mitya's Havillet, because that's the same profile and Hudson was better at the time. And so that's the one that I, maybe it was an inch taller. Like, but I don't know. Inch taller, a little quicker. Yeah. That's the one that really caught my eye.

Same thing like Casey. Yeah. Hudson and way smarter than both of them, more competitive than both of them, and just ended up being a, obviously a dramatically better player. At least there though, like you could look at, like when you were making that pick, you could look at it and say, NTDP's coach has them both. He picks Casey to play over him. Like, at least you could make that argument, and I completely get that.

Now, he, it was funny, really strange team. Nightingale ran that. team for what it's worth, is that Casey was first power to play, but Hudson played more minutes somehow. Because he killed penalties, you know, he killed penalties and he was more, just got more in strength minutes, tougher matchups. It was very, and again, that's just the NTP as a whole. You got to find a way to use all these guys kind of thing. So, um, but it's a fascinating case study. Yeah. And a really fascinating year. I mean, that's the, that's the real story of this 22 classes. There's a ton of scouting lessons. And I'm sure some of them are canceled out by other draft

classes. Like we, as we do the rest of these rebels, maybe we'll contradict ourselves a little bit. But there's a lot of really good stuff to dig into here. You can read Corey's 22 redraft on the athletic.com. That is going to do it for us today. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect series. We'll talk to you soon.