The Athletic Hockey Show - NHL Draft Combine buzz: Cayden Lindstrom, Stian Solberg, and more

Episode Date: June 14, 2024

On today’s Prospect Series episode, Max, Corey, Scott, and FloHockey’s Chris Peters talk to The Athletic’s own Arpon Basu about the Montreal Canadiens’ options heading into the NHL Draft with the No. 5 pick, the guys discuss what they learned at this year’s NHL Scouting Combine, and close things out with listener questions in the mailbag. 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 Pronman, Scott Wheeler, and back with us this week, Flo Hockey's, Chris Peters, for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Arpin Bassu is going to join us a little bit later to talk about Montreal, but you guys all just got back from the NHL scouting combine, and that's where I want to start. Obviously, whole leagues there, so much intrigue.

Corey, if I asked you for the juiciest topic this year's Combine, what would you say? I mean, I don't know how juicy it is, but I think, you know, during this year, especially the second half of the year, we had some concerns about Kaine Lindstrom's health. Obviously, he missed most of the second half of the year due to injury, both a hand injury and a herniated disc in his back. And then tries come back right at the end of his year for the WHL playoffs, opening round against Red Deer, doesn't look good, gets scratched in one of the games,

clearly wasn't healthy. And so now, you know, there's some questions about the guy's health going into the combine, going into his draft. And then you kind of see him at the combine. He's walking around. He looks good. It's not like Merrick Vaneker who has like, who has a, you know, basically, it's like all kind of bandaged up. He looks, you know, walking around good.

You know, he gets, he doesn't do all the testing, but he does the stuff that stresses your back. He did a full set of pull-ups and, you know, I think he actually scored well on the pull-up stage of the combine relative to his peers. And, you know, he just looked fine. And, you know, I'm not a doctor, but I talk to people who know doctors. And their doctors seem to be a little bit more optimistic on him than they were a month ago. And I think more research is going to have to be done there. You need to do all the kinds of research when you're picking in the top 10, in the top five.

But it kind of feels like the winds are blowing back in a positive direction for Lindstrom. And I would be quite optimistic about the chance that he's going to go in the top five. selections of this year's draft. Yeah, you know, the other thing too, like Lindstrom, we talked about the help getting on the ice. He's been on the ice a lot lately. He's been working out. You know, that's good.

As Corey said, he did a few of the drills, performed very well with the bench press as well. I mean, nobody was questioning that. But, you know, just the more you talk to people, the less concern that is. And I think that's such an important thing going forward for him is that, you know, everybody love the upside already. And now he's got this clean bill of health.

So it did seem like confidence was at an all-time high surrounding Caden Lynch from coming out of the combine. He's up here for Wasserman's camp right now as well. And I know there are teams that are getting additional visits with him in Toronto. So there's no shortage of opportunity. He was at the Memorial Cup for the CHO Awards. There's been no shortage of opportunities for teams to get eyes and ears on conversations with Caden. There's a few teams in this draft that feels like have a little extra spotlight on their pick. We obviously had Scott Powers on recently to talk about the Blackhawks at two.

Arpin's going to talk about Montreal at five. I think another one of those teams is Calgary at number nine, Corey. And the big focus really comes down to are they going to take Jerome McGillesson, Teague, who is a fantastic prospect no matter his last name. But it adds a little bit of spotlight, I think, to that pick and whether they make it. Yeah, obviously they have, you know, the history with the father in the organization. He's still working in the organization now in their hockey office department.

Those are significant variables. And Aginna very well could be gone by their pick. I would say 50-50 chance. You know, I think there's spots in that 6 to 10 range. I could envision him going, but I also could very well envision him going right around their pick, going to New Jersey at 10, going to Buffalo at 11. I think that's kind of the ballpark range for Iginnla. but you know you look at the calgary organization you look at their last first round picks

you know which is mac coronado it's jacobelchay it's connor zary it's samuel hanelic a lot of forwards a lot of wingerers and you know tija gindla if you look at his position listing on on central scouting it's a c next to it it's not a wing even though he played wing all season and and he was telling teams at the combine he thinks he can be a center and he thinks he will play some center next season in the WHL, whether you believe he's a center or not, it's a whole other issue. I mean, Lindstrom played center. Some teams think he's a wing. It's projecting what position the guy's going to play at the next level is always a tricky debate. But he's obviously a very talented player. But I think you really look at this organization and they really need

centers, real centers, whether you believe a gindler is one of them or not. And they especially need defensemen. They have, you know, Jeremy Pore, Iche and Moran are nice prospects. But there are no sure things to have long NHL careers. So I think they're in a really interesting scenario there, where I think if you really kind of look at their depth chart, look at the talent in this year's draft, such a defense rich draft in particular, like there could be one of Sam Dickinson there,

Carter Yacchanchuk, Zeefe Boyan, Zinc, perhaps multiple of them available to Calgary. I have a really hard time if I was the manager of that team saying the better option is a Gindla, from a hockey perspective, but I am aware there are some very unique circumstances there, and I would not want to be in Craig Conroy's shoes right now. Part of the reason that they acquired Hunter Bristavich,

and he wasn't among that very short list that Corey mentioned, but it is a very short list of deep prospects in Calgary, but part of the reason they acquired Hunter Bristavich was simply because there's clearly a need there in the pool on defense. So to use a premium asset in a top 10 pick on a player other than a defenseman, And now they don't have game breakers there. Conorzar is a good player. Matt Coronado's a good player.

Samuel Hansick's a good player. They need a star stud at forward too. But I think you're more likely to get a true, true, number one, number two defensemen with that pick than you are to have Teague-Ginlet turn into the number one player on a championship team. Chris, if you were Calgary and you did view defense as your kind of priority here, within reason. I don't want you to say Artem Levschenov to this, but which defenseman would you be kind of keyed in on it if you were them. Yeah, I mean, you know, it's tough because I think at the

position they're in, there's a good chance that you're picking the fourth or fifth defensemen that could potentially go. I mean, it's possible. And so in that regard, you're probably, I think if I'm Calgary, I'm probably hopeful that Sam Dickinson is still around. I don't know if that's necessarily going to happen, but I think he gives you the most well-rounded of the group. You know, I think that in terms of got Bruce Davis in the system already, you know, I think with Z. Booiam, you say, okay, well, we've got a California kid with that, you know, how, how are we only going to have them for seven years? You know, are we going to have another situation where we don't keep, you know, I think Canadian teams have to, to look at that, you know, kind of

difference of, hey, what are these guys really long term? Dickinson, to me, you know, with the athletic profile, the size, the skating ability, you know, to keep pace in a league in a division where, you know, speed and power are going to be a premium asset, you know, I think that you would hope that somebody like a Sam Dickinson could potentially be there. You know, you've got Carter Yakum Chuck right down the road there for sure, but I don't necessarily know, you know, if it were down between those two, I think, you know, I'd lean Dickinson pretty decisively at that point for what their needs are. But yeah, I mean, it's a tough situation that you're in, as Corey noted, just with with the pressure of Teage there. And I do think, you know, that's a play.

player where there's going to be, you know, as Scott mentioned, trying to get that premium forward talent, those, some of those guys are going to potentially be there. It's just, you know, I think if you were going to find somebody, you'd really hope that he was one of the top tier centers in the group. And, you know, we just don't think that'll be available to them, which makes that defense a little bit more palatable. So, you know, I think, long story short, you know, if the board falls right for him, getting a Dickinson would be helpful. one guy I just can't see them picking as can and canton's a great player but imagine if they well let me ask you this I can't see them picking catn if a ginnla is available because could you imagine

how next season is going to go if both of those kids are in the Western league and on team Canada at the world juniors I that would be uh you say you see you think this decision is difficult that situation in particular would get very difficult but isn't that the case either like Chris took me to task on this a little bit ago asking if I would like my job as if I was GM if I passed over Teage. Isn't it the same either way? Like, you have to still pick the guy you think is the best. If you pick Teage and Katten's better, it's the same deal with them being in the same league and all that. Listen, I get it.

Like I have Cadden way ahead of Teich. Like, I've also not, you know, those are such unique circumstances. And I really don't know what they're just talking about with Tees in that organization. Other than I know, you know, like everyone. they like the player and, you know, and we'll see ultimately what they decide to do. You know, it does remind me a little bit of when Montreal picked Louis LeBlanc at the draft that they were hosting. And I'm not saying they didn't like Louis at the time, but, you know, you kind of remember,

like the crowd goes crazy when they picked him. But ultimately it wasn't the best long-term decision. And I think you, you know, we, I think in general, you just have to pick the best player available. Scott, a big part of the combine we know is the interviews. And it seems like every year there's a darling or two that we hear is, you know, I think Mort Sider might have even been one of those guys in his year who just kind of really wowed everybody with his interviews. Anybody kind of that you've heard some buzz on how they interviewed?

Dionne Solberg was the one. I just wrapped up my scout survey at the Athletic, which will be out on Monday. And as part of that, I always ask people the same question. which is just sort of who really grabbed you in interviews. And Solberg's name came up repeatedly. Just another notch in the belt, if you will, after his playoffs with Valeranga and that his men's worlds. He presents, well, I mean, we all saw it.

Peters and I saw it in his scrum as well. Like he's got some charisma to him. He's got a presence about him on the ice and clearly off the ice as well, a bit of a character. So it sounds like, I mean, I heard from legit four or five, six teams who were like, yeah, he was, he was impressive. So he didn't hurt his case that way.

I heard from one team that was interviewing him who asked him, and this is a common question teams asked the interviews, like, what range of the draft you think you're going to go, what teams do you think might pick you? And he turned to them and he said, I think you're picking me, which I thought was a very common answer to say. You think the team like that? I think they did.

I think it was a unique answer for sure. Yeah. Yeah, and I mean, and that's another parallel. We've talked about Solberg in the, in the cider kind of category, not true, because necessarily that he's the same player, but that their stories are really intertwined in terms of what they've done. And certainly the combine, my favorite thing was more at cider wearing his, you know, pearl white gym shoes, you know, to every interview. And he's like, I didn't know I was supposed to wear a suit to this thing.

And the teams loved him for it. They're just like, this is great. He's just a natural person. And, you know, I think for Solberg, you know, that that was big. He, you know, he did some, he had some really good events on the, on the physical testing as well. I just did the combine weekend for him was another affirmation of the growth that we've seen in his draft stock. And that, you know, that'll continue to be there. I mean, there's a really good chance.

He's going to be the first defenseman picked out of that second tier after the, the big guys that we think are there. And who knows, maybe he jumps ahead of, of somebody there, which, brings me to something that I wanted to, you know, you talk about the quality interviews, and that's obviously very important. I would also throw in a Michaela Yagora. I've heard really good things about his interviews as well, with teams, the goalie, one of the top goalies available, impeccable English and, you know, a guy that's committed to Boston University. And he was also great in the media scrums as well. Talked a lot about his mental game, his mental toughness and things like that because he had a really tough season with Omaha last year. But, you know, one of the guys,

one of the big guys in the group, you know, that we kind of heard some buzz about, you know, maybe didn't interview as well was Carter Yakum Chuck. And I think that also the Combine weekend was not a week in general was maybe not necessarily the best for him, you know, in the interviews, but also, you know, the physical testing. I think there have been some questions about his overall athleticism on the lower body testing. Things like horizontal jump, vertical jump. He was pretty well below average of the group in terms of the testing. And you don't put, you know, like they're young guys. They're going to get strong. you know, you don't put a ton of emphasis on that. But I think that there's also some questions like, you know, he's just a tremendously talented player, but maybe doesn't necessarily always, you know, present as confidently as a player with his skill set. I think we saw that a little bit in the interviews and the scrums. But also, you know, that was kind of the reporting coming out is that there wasn't,

you know, the interviews for him didn't necessarily present as a guy that, you know, had that same level of confidence of. say a Stea on Solberg saying you're going to pick me you know so i think that that's sometimes teams want that and you know it's a maturity thing as well worth noting too that yakum chuck i know in the on ice testing at the chl and hl top prospects game uh i was sent the data that they have from that from that testing and he finished 33rd of 35 skaters in the overall testing uh at at that's strictly on ice drills uh the chl top prospects game so a bit of a theme there i've just spoken with his strength coach, Doug Crashly, about it as well. And he's just, he's not a natural athlete.

He's not an outgoing kid. The hockey is, is, is everything to him. I think that came across to teams at the combine. You know, I hate to be seen as like the ultimate Yakimchuk defender, but too late. Yeah, no, it is too late. But like, he didn't perform great in the horizontal jump, but he did score ahead of who I would say are really good athletes in McLean-Cellibrean, and Zane Parrick So, you know,

to me, with that stuff, like, I read, I lit that stuff, but to me, I always focus on, like,

the extremes, like, who's, like, extremely good. Who's, who's, like, the top two,

three, and who's at the top two or three, or three, you know, who's the two or three at the bottom. And I, and none of those guys, actually,

I think, you know, Parick was fourth worst in the horizontal jump. But, like, you know, you look at, emory,

who was, I think, like, eight inches, beyond the third place finisher or something like that. Something crazy along those lines. Those are the ones that tend to grab my interest mostly when it comes to this stuff. So that's what I wanted to ask Chris about.

Well, sorry, sorry, Max, I will say too. Like, that was actually Yakim Chuk said, you know, what were the things that NHL teams wanted you to work on in athleticism, strength? Those were big, big topics among NHL teams with him. I was just curious, Chris, like how much do you think that teams are weighing some of these testing results.

And did any, I don't know how much you can hurt yourself with them, but did anybody really help themselves or does it just not move the needle all that much? I don't think it moves the needle a lot. But as Corey noted, when you see the extremes, that's when you're like, whoa, okay. So E.J. Emery, uh, a hundred and twenty three inches on the vertical on the horizontal jump, which as far as I can tell is, is the longest anybody has gone. Um, based on historic, you know, it's hard to find accurate historical. for this, publicly at least.

And so, and four inches, almost a four full inches further than anyone else did it. The thing is that everybody already knew that E.J. Emery was a tremendous athlete. The thing about, the thing that is interesting about Emery is you look at him, he is still very thin. He also tested with the body fat composition of like, what, 3.6% Scott, I think he was like, like something like that. Him and Sam Dickinson both, and it was like, what? You know, but the other thing is that EJ, he's still thin. So he's got this ability, you know, if he can tack on more bulk to that frame and he

already has that explosiveness and that power, you know, that's, that's, that's big. But, you know, that doesn't necessarily help you with, you know, the fact that he didn't score any goals this season, except for in the All American Prospects game, you know, like that's, those are the types of things that are being discussed. So I think NHL teams are looking at it. There's a reason that they send all their strength and conditioning and human performance people to these events. It's not insignificant.

I think some of the physiological testing that happens, some of the stuff that happens behind closed doors, ends up being more important in terms of, you know, gauging, you know, there may be some data that they can pull from that that says, well, this guy might be a little injury prone. You know, there are some balance issues here or there. You know, those are the types of things that might have an impact as opposed to the physical testing.

But I think of the other thing that teams are looking at is how hard are guys trying, how much do they compete? The fact that Sam Dickinson and Zane Perak both came. came and did all the testing despite playing a week prior with no training. You know, that says they both said, we wanted to compete. We wanted to show, you know, it might not be the best, but we're still going to do it. I think that matters to teams. You know, the pull-ups is, okay, you didn't do one, but did you try?

You know, I mean, we saw, we saw Sam Bennett not do a pull-up. And he's in the Stanley Cup final right now and is considered, you know, one of the tougher players in the league. So it's, you know, that's the thing that you can't read too much into it. It's not insignificant. It's another data point, but I think teams are at least looking at these closely and trying to get as much information as they can from every single element of the draft process. On that note, among the worst performers in the vertical jump, I think he was tied for second, which tied for third worst, was Maclin Celebrity.

So fire beware. San Jose. All right. That's a good place for us to leave off, take a break. We'll be right back with Arpin Basu to talk Montreal and the inflection point. point at number five. In the meantime, I'm going to hope nobody checks my body fat composition. All right, we are joined now by our Montreal Canadiens writer, Arpin Basu, just got back from the Combine Arpin. Obviously, we talked about that in segment one. But I wanted to start here with

you with Montreal because they are kind of a big pivot point, it seems, in this draft right at number five. It could get a little weird before that, but I think there's a little more stability within that top two, three, four. Montreal, it seems like that's a big inflection point really for this draft. And I think what we can start is, how do you kind of view the Montreal system right now? What are their big needs? How set do you feel they are? They've obviously used high picks on guys like Caden Gully, guys like David Reimbach. Do you view D as a set need for them? Do you think they're still kind of in, they need everything mode? No, I think they're very comfortable with what they have defensively in their pipeline. You know, they see a lot of potential and a lot of

sure things. I mean, you mentioned Gully. I believe and would be surprised if this didn't happen, but they're going to try and sign him to a long-term extension probably this summer. See him as a guy who's going to wear a letter on their team at some point. Ryan Bacher, obviously, they invested a very high leverage pick in him last year at number five, you know, foregoing other potential picks at that spot that caused a lot of consternation in the market. So they're heavily invested to him and frankly, I think he looked pretty good when he came over to the HL after a pretty disastrously season in Switzerland, adapted really well to the North American Pro game better than I thought he would personally.

So, but having said all that, you know, do they have, is Lane Hudson going to be a star player, a superstar? He could be. I would even say he probably will be, but you can't, you know, there's obviously some unknowns there with how his game will translate. And so if he doesn't, that element would be missing from their, from their, from their pipeline, you know, having that high-end puck mover who can really drive offense from the back end. I think it would be fair for them to gamble on Lane Hudson, you know, kind of

translating his skill set to the NHL. I think it's a fair gamble to make. But it remains a gamble. So if there's one area on defense where they might need something or could use something, at least, it would be that sort of elite puck mover that is what is possibly available to them at number five this year. I think the real question for them in that spot is presuming, let's presume Kaden Lindstrom is gone by the fifth pick. He may not be, let's presume he is gone by that pick. And now you're weighing Ivan Demondog, you love the player, but there's some risks on

whether he's got, you know, just drafting a Russian winger in general, there's always risks, is do you think that Montreal's defense group, their young prospects, you know, we didn't even talk about Logan Mayu, we didn't talk about Justin Barron, you know, they obviously have some really good depth on defense coming. Is it so good to preclude them from taking a player? Maybe it is Anton Salaia, maybe it's Ziv Boya, maybe it's Sam Dickinson, maybe it's Zinclair. If one of those guys they have rated significantly higher than, say,

Lynch-Gim or Demadov, do you think they're so set on defense that they should just take the forward? Well, I think in that scenario, if Damedov is there, I think they would take the forward. The real question is if both of them happen somehow go in the top four. And then what do you do? So if any draft board

and you guys do the same, you're going to have tiers, right? You're going to have tiers of players. So is it worth leaving a tier for a positional need? And I think that's a question that the Canadians are going to wrestle with. If Demido is there

and any of the defensemen you mentioned are there, you know, one thing to Canadians and I think they're not the only ones. A lot of teams look at this is, you know, scarcity of players. How often do players like this come up in the draft is something that they think of a lot. Salaev is practically an unprecedented player this draft or any draft, really. He doesn't come around very often a player profile like that. So I think they would have to consider it.

Boyam, Parrick, you know, elite offensive puck moving D who can drive offense like tangibly. aren't all that frequently available in the draft. So I think they'd have to consider it. The other factor to consider here as well is there is massive amounts of public pressure on this administration to add a high-scale offensive-type game-breaking player. And if that player is available to them, and a lot of their fan base obviously saw Matt Be and Michkov as being that guy last year, if that player is available to them at five and they pass on them again,

there's going to be a lot of sort of PR massaging that's going to have to be done for a second year in a row, really for a third year in a row because the whole fan base was outraged about Shane Wright in 2022. That one seems to be working out. Well, you would think that that would get them a little bit of benefit of the doubt, but it hasn't for some reason. So it's really, it's a situation where whatever they decide to do, that's going to be one factor. I don't think it's going to be a deciding factor. I think they've already proven that they're willing to make the pick that they believe in. and not sort of coward to public pressure on any given player.

But it's definitely in their minds, you know, especially after what happened last year when a good chunk of the fan base really lost their minds that they took Reimbachr instead of Matthew Michab. Who do you think the dream scenario is for Montreal? We've talked about, you know, Lindstrom may not be there, but if he's there, is the big center, is that the appeal of that, make him the perfect candidate?

Is it the Miedov for the high skill? Like, what's the dream scenario in Montreal? Yeah, I think Lindstrom being there at five would be really ideal for them. You know, I think there's been some question on whether he'll play center or wing at the next level. And I think either way, the Canadians would be fine with it. You know, they have to assume that, you know, they have to work under the assumption that Kirby Doc is going to be healthy one day or play a full season in the NHL. And when he does that, they have a lot of belief in that player and believe that he can really be a difference maker for them.

And if that's the case, you know, Doc and Suzuki kind of locked in one, two, up front. But what they're missing is some help on the wing. And now if you're looking at Lindstrom and Doc and Slavkovsky in your top six, you're mitigating the fact that you have a Caulfield. Suzuki's not the biggest guy. And then they have a six kind of spot that they could maybe fill out with the Joshua one day. But you're looking at three really big guys, offensively skilled, talented guys in your top six.

And it becomes a really interesting mix. So I think, yeah, Lindstrom being there at five would kind of be the ideal scenario. the most interesting one is obviously if Lindstrom and did neither the or both Lindstrom and to meet over there, which one they would go with. I'm guessing, my guess, I don't have this firm, but my guess would be Lindstrom

just because of everything I just mentioned and their preference for size and you see it in the playoffs every year and you're seeing it this year that having big physical, mean forwards in the playoffs helps a lot. And then the other scenarios, if neither of them are there,

do they go defense? Those are the two kind of extremes of the scenarios for the Canadians. But the second one to me is far more intriguing because I think under that scenario, they probably should go defense. I think it's such a fascinating situation where Montreal is almost dealing with two nearly analogous sets of circumstances in back-to-back seasons where you have this super skilled Russian winger who plays in the Sky organization. and presuming Lindstrom is gone, then the next best alternative would be, you know, do we take a defense maybe really covet or do we take maybe a Ford that we're not super high on

in terms of maybe offensive ceilings and whatnot? So I guess, you know, there was a lot talking about with Montreal and Montefay-Micha-Michikov last year. They decided to go a different route. You know, David Reimbacher's a good prospect. We'll see it a few years how that decision ages. But it seems like the way you're, talking like I felt like we'd go into the job we had an idea that Montreal maybe wasn't super

enthralled by Mitchcoff. It seems like you're not getting those signals from the organization about Demidov right now. In your opinion, why would there be a distinction this year versus a situation last year, be it still like, you know, he's still playing in Russia. He's still not the major tournaments. Still, it's the SCA organization. What's the distinction you think for them? Well, I think, you know, if you kind of read between the lines of them, they can't just come out and hammer a kid that's not in their organization that they didn't choose to draft. I mean, no team would really do that, right?

But it's pretty clear to me that the reasons they stated for not taking Michkov were the most publicly digestible reasons that they could express. I think when it came down to it, they didn't like the player. They had questions about the player. They didn't like sort of the variability of this compete level. And you got to remember, like, this kid was entirely scouted on video. And I scouted him on video. I watched a whole bunch of his games to try and get to know him.

And it's true that on many occasions you would be watching the game. You know he's on the ice, but he's not in the frame. The puck's in his end and 10, 15, 20 seconds will go by and you don't see him. And so I think things like that, things like that, bothered the Canadians about him. That's the impression I've gotten at least. I don't feel like they have the same concerns with Demitov, and frankly watching Demidov, they shouldn't because he's a far more,

he's a far more engaged player at both ends of the ice, more competitive, you know, it's not going to win you puck battles up and down the ice in the NHL, but seems willing to engage in them at least. And so there's elements of his game, I think, that they prefer. And so I think some of the other factors that are commonalities between the two players, I think ultimately those took a backseat last year to their evaluation of the player itself, himself, I should say.

And while those factors are still factors when it pertains to Demitov, particularly with him having one year left on his contract and not really knowing how that whole situation is going to play out and how Scott is going to react to losing this kid in a year, you know all that put aside from a player evaluation standpoint i think um i think they've always liked demetov much more than than they like mitchv at any point last season it it felt like ryan leonard was more in that conversation for them last season than mitchf in the end right absolutely it was it was really came down to leonard and rimebacker at least that's the impression i came away with um and again they saw you know they played at any

I think there was somewhat of a positional scarcity play there, you know, the big right shot D. Who's as defensively mature as Ryanbacker was at a young age and playing in a very difficult league, they saw that as more of a rare commodity than just an Uber competitive, physical, sort of really playoff-style winger that Ryan Leonard was and is.

That's a debate that could continue today, just like Mitchcock versus Ryanbacker could continue today. This administration is going to have to wear that until it plays out. But so far, the first time they were questioned on their pick, it's looking pretty good so far. We'll see how this one turns out probably in the next couple of years. You talked about the interesting scenario of if both Lindstrom and Demidov are there. I think the most interesting might be if both are gone. Oh, absolutely, yeah.

And let's say they're sitting there and it's, you know, Salive and, you know, a Bouyam or a Perak or a Yakumchuk. And I wonder, like, it sounds like you think maybe the puck moving, would be the most appealing side of that for one of the smaller puck moving types as opposed to a saliva? I can't really put a real gauge on it. I just, I look at their pipeline on D and yes, it's good and it's primarily deep and it's probably going to lose some depth this summer. Because I think the Canes are going to deal,

they're going to try to deal at least one or two of the younger D that they won't be able to find a place to play. But I see that as a question mark that real good winning teams have. you know, I'm not saying that one of William or Perrette will be the equivalent of Akele Macar, but playing that type of game or that style of game or having a similar type of impact would help. Having said that, though, I don't really have a read on whether they would go there. I think they like these guys. I think Salia is a very enticing player for them if he's there. But the real interesting part of it is not which defensemen they choose.

It's just the decision to go with a defenseman. and or instead of either trading down or going ahead and picking a Beck at Seneca or a T. Jiggenla at 5. Or another forward that maybe I'm not aware of. But it's or trading down is another possibility. Like it's it's it just seems like it would be it would be jumping through a lot of hoops just to kind of stick to what you said you were going to accomplish with the number five pick. Sometimes you have to play the hand that's. that you're dealt, right? And so if that happens and their two preferred forward options are gone, I really don't see a, it might not be the smartest course of action to either trade down

and risk not getting any of the guys that you wanted or, you know, I wouldn't say reaching, but picking a forward who's in a different tier of player than the defensemen who are, who are available with you in that spot. Like I think they're not so far along in their defenses, not so perfect that taking a defenseman would be an egregious error. And I think, I don't think they're, they're willing to make an egregious scouting error in this, in this draft. And so that might be one of them if they were to choose to take the forward despite having three, if not four, if not five, incredible defense prospects staring right at them at number five. Corey, if they were to trade down, and I know in the staff mock art been traded down to nine,

I believe with Calgary. But if Montreal was to trade down to the back half of the top 10, 8, 9, 10, how likely are they to get a guy like Seneca there or maybe Tiji Ginnla, who I think is the guy you took in that mock, Arpin? I did just to troll flames fans. It was really my goal and it worked out. Yeah, I just don't, I just don't see that really happening because, I mean, I think they could get one of those guys there.

I think that's probably, I think both of those guys are probably going in like six to 12 would be my guess both Seneca and again like around that range of the draft but I think like with this draft I mentioned this in the last episode I think like after celebrini it's it's pretty it mean my opinion is not wide open but I mean in terms of like the lack of consensus it's it's a wide open draft and in terms of that I don't think there's another player or two out that that every scout I talked to agrees is a top five player in this draft. I think no matter where you're picking in the top 10 or 11 picks, and the teams I talk to picking this range of greed, they think they're going to get a player that's top three,

top four on their list. So I'm not sure why a team picking at like 8, 9, 10 would want to move up unless the board really goes a way that they hate to go up a couple of slots. I don't see the massive drop-offs and talent this year to justify that. But I do. I, like, to answer your question, I do think they could get what a set of Gidla, Berkeley Caton, Costa Helenaus in that range. But that's a scenario

that we're talking about where they're trading down. We're basically talking about Salev is there, and that's a guy who I could see a lot of teams thinking wouldn't be there at five who now is and they have a chance to whatever. I'm just going to, maybe we're getting into reckless territory. Yeah, I think at some point you just have to take the best player

and figure it out later. You kind of said that with Buffalo last year. They love Zach Benson. They knew they have a lot of small forwards. They picked Zach Benson. They're going to say, we'll figure out this problem later. They still haven't figured it out. They might actually end up with another small forward this year based on how the board might play out. But that's how they approached it. And I mean, I remember a long time ago when Montreal was picking top five in the draft and they picked a goaltender named Carrie Price, despite the fact that they had a heart winning goaltender already in their organization, but they took the best player available. So I think you want to be. too careful about getting too far off your board. I think that's where a lot of bad decisions are made. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think the Canadians are somewhat cognizant of the fact that, you know, they're not in a position to be too picky with the number five pick.

If all goes according to their plan, they won't be picking top five next year. Maybe more like a top 10 pick, you know, we'll see what happens. But they have to kind of operate under that assumption. they have probably an owner who's getting antsy to want to see some results here. And so, you know, I think the team building component of the draft is maybe held a little bit more dear to the Montreal staff than it might be elsewhere in the league. And which is why they're looking at this situation and seeing a possibility. Like I think when they saw this draft, I believe they looked at it and said, wow, there's all these good defensemen. So at five or wherever they didn't even know where they were picking at that point,

but they think we might be able to get one of the top forwards in this draft later than we normally would because of the high quality of defense. So if it played out that way, then their plan has worked perfectly. If somehow it flips and it becomes forward heavy in the top four, well, then they have to start to reevaluate things and really, in my opinion, not look to trade down, but they just need to take a defenseman. It shouldn't be this complicated. If you have a really good defenseman staring you in the face,

a type of defenseman you don't have in your system already and it's not redundant, just take the guy and figure it out. Move another defenseman to get a forward if you need to, but you can't do too much. I would argue there's a couple of defensemen this year's draft in the namely Zeev Boym at Denver and Zane Perrick at Saginaw who I would argue are just as if not more talented offensively than a lot of those quote unquote top forwards in this year's draft. Yes. and it doesn't really matter where you get offense from.

You just have to get offense from somewhere. What does the practicality of that look like in terms of who the odd man out is? I mean, you mentioned that they will and are considering moving some of those defensemen. We've talked about Logan Mayu. We've talked about Lane Hudson, David Reimbacker, Caden Gully. But there's also, in Struble, and Arbor Jackai, and Justin Barron, and Jordan Herrick. Like who do you get the sense in a potential move of one or two or even three of those guys? Who do you get the sense is the odd man out and what the value play there is for them in terms of what they can get on the market?

Well, I think it really, it's a good question. It's a question that I've been asking and trying to explore for months now. You know, they really have two kind of tiers of defensemen in their group. Like you look at kind of Gully and Reimbacker as being. at the top end and my you is kind of on the bubble there in terms of being with the season he just had in the hl he was made the all-star team he was he had a great rookie year in the american league he's got some things he needs to work on defensively but you know i think the organization is optimistic that he's going to be able to figure that out and become a real unique offensive

type defenseman with the physicality and the athleticism that he brings um so that's kind of one tier where you kind of and i really i think it would take something extraordinary to get them to even consider moving either a bully or Reimbacker, then you're looking at a bunch of guys who have varying degrees of value. And to me, when I look at Harris, when I look at Struble, I look at Barron, less so jack high because I think this administration really, really likes him. And again, the playoff nature of the nature of the playoffs, I should say, and having a guy who can be as physical as him and has pretty decent feet for a guy his size and frankly underrated offensive a skill to them.

When I see Harris and Strublin Barron in particular, I see guys who are legitimate NHL defensemen who could play on a third pair, can help in a second pair in a pinch if you have a lot of injuries, can help somewhat on special teams, maybe down the line. Harris has become actually a pretty good penalty killer. You know, they're cheap NHL defensemen. And so any team looking to fill out their defense corps and don't have a lot of room under the cap or a little pinched elsewhere, that could provide some value. The other option is to, you know, pair the 26th overall pick that they got from the Jets

with one or two of these defensemen to try and either move up in the draft or to get a piece of some sort. But it's clear to me that you're not going to dangle Jordan Harris, Jaden Struble, Justin Barron, as individual parts, and get a big upgrade elsewhere in your lineup as a result. you'll get a commensurate forward who you can plug in, who could be a fourth line guy or a third line guy, who could be in your second line in a pinch. And, you know,

so it's really not, they don't have enormous value in that sense. But I feel like in a league where, you know, I mean, look at, look at Edmonton trying to, like struggling to figure out who their sixth defenseman is in Stanley Cup final,

you know, like it's not a good situation. And so when you have guys that you can lean on and are reliable, and I think a lot of these guys, maybe Barron excluded somewhat for now, but it's true. Harris for sure, have shown an ability to be reliable defensively. Struble has a bit more of a mean streak and a bit more of a physical side to him.

Harris' feet are quite exceptional and can do things defensively with his feet that make them interesting. But they're death pieces. So you're not getting a whole lot for them. So I'm really going to be curious to see how this plays out because the value of those guys is not equal to what the Canadians probably hope to get for them. Great stuff. I would highly recommend everybody go read Arpin's stuff at The Athletic

on what he has called to quote one of his articles from this weekend. The most complicated draft this Canadian administration has ever handled. Arpin, thanks so much for being with us. Thanks, fellas. I love your show. I'm a big fan. I've got to say. Long-time listener, first-time guest.

Not first-time guest. We had you last year. We had you one for Slavkovsky. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. I've had first time this year. But anyhow, that's right. Well, we appreciate it nonetheless. We're going to take a quick break. Come back with the mailbag. All right, we are back for the mailbag. Chris had to step out. So we got Scott and Corey here. Corey will start with you for this one from Nod. He says, should Habs fans be worried that Habs management may pass on Demadov if he's available or is there nothing to worry about? Furthermore, how likely do you think it is that Demudov drops to five? I don't know how you want to take worried here, right? I think it. I think. I think that's probably the first premise of the question. Right. I think it depends on your evaluation. I think pretty analogous to Mitchkov last year, quite frankly.

I think the hike machine on this player has gone, it has gone a little out of control. I think he could be an excellent NHL forward, a very high-producing NHL forward. But just like you would have looked at, say, Adam Fantilli or, you know, or another player in last year, I think he's more of a sure thing. I think he's a really good player. There's other really good players in this year's draft too. I think he'd be very optimistic about, like, I know we talk about Demadov, like he's a gamebreaker. There's other game breakers in this draft.

I think, I know it's, they have a, he has a different position listed next to his name, but to me, Zeev Boyan was a game breaker this year. Every game I've watched of his this year at Denver, he was absolutely dynamic, like, jumped out at you with, like, he's got to be one of the, most unique, exciting prospects I've seen when doing this job from an offense and creativity standpoint. So, like, if they decided to go in a paroch or a boeum direction, I don't know if I'd be worried. I think you're still getting somebody who's dynamic, even if they don't feel the right position on the depth chart. It does feel like the winds are blowing in the direction of them taking

a forward, of them potentially taking Demadov if he is there at five. But if, I mean, it And they called, if they got up to the stage and called Consta Heleneas' name, I'd have some questions. If they got up to the stage and called, like, Adam Yerechek's name, I would have further questions. But I don't know that I would be, like, overly concerned because there's a reason you keep finishing at the bottom of the standings is your team is bad. Like, I don't care how many good young defense prospects you say you have. Your team is bad. So, like, get good players first and then tell me about trying to plug in your needs. All right.

With emphasis from Corey. Next one to Scott from Ned Braden. He says Michael Hage was mentioned in Corey's polls of best skating and best hands categories. This is the draft confidential article, which I would highly recommend everybody go read. Ned wants to know, could Hage be higher on the boards of teams than he is of public lists? I think it does feel like it's trending a little bit in that direction. Certainly his second half sort of changed the conversation and sort of moved him

certainly for me, and I know for some others from sort of late first to mid-first, I think there's a real chance that he's taken in the teens now. I think Corey and his pole are bang on in terms of the skating and skill elements, especially the skating. I think that deserves emphasis in terms of the way he flies for a 6-1, 6'2 center. There's a lot to like about Michael's game and his profile and the makeup and the tools. and it does feel like he's going to be, once he get through that top tier of forwards

that we've spent the last several months talking ad nauseum about, he's right there in that next group, I think, certainly for me, but I think also increasingly for a number of NHL clubs and just the fact that he's going to Michigan and they've got a habit of turning guys like that around and turning them into productive players quickly in college.

He's going to play even after some of the training. for portal guys that they've added. He's going to play potentially as a top six center immediately for that team and play with good players. He just, he's on a good path. He just looks like he's on the right track. And that's really positive after he missed his 16 year old season or almost the entirety

of his 16 year old season to shoulder surgery. So he's developed at a nice clip here over the last, whatever it is, nine months. I know with Hage, you see the talent, like I said, the skating, the skills. the size, it's really obvious. He can be dynamic at times. You know, when I watched him during the season and when some scouts who I know who watched him this year, they had the concerns at times where he was a little inconsistent at times.

I personally wondered if he stayed on the outside a little bit too much. But, you know, he was so good in the second half of the year. You know, more consistent in the second half of the year. You know, you just was explosive and, you know, quickly, you know, went to the top of the scoring charts in the USHL. And it does at least beg the question. of were there consistency issues or was it the fact that he was injured and missed most of a 16-year-old season? And, you know, in the background of a Hague evaluation is the fact that he

dealt with a pretty significant personal tragedy very recently, you know, with the sudden tragic passing of his father. And I know, you know, some people have difficult interviews where the teams challenged the players. And I think in the Hague interviews, it was the player who challenge the teams because I you know I think there was a lot of waterworks in those interviews just talking about terrible situation he dealt with with his father and it's um you know it's even difficult for me to talk about right now to be quite honest um but I think in the context of thinking about his season it's hard not to ignore those factors yeah uh Keenan O'Donohue Corey says I'm constantly seeing Michael Brancic kneeguard being mocked and drafted to the red wings well I totally

get it. I find it a little concerning. Detroit seems to have a type more than anyone else. Could you maybe suggest any other direction they may go? Keenan is sick of hearing about Michael Brancic-Neegard for Detroit. Well, to pivot from our previous question, like, I think Michael H could fit there. I agree. I think Cole Eisenman would be like the two guys who maybe are not the two-way-forward type of thing, but they fit a scoring element while also having some translatable elements in their game to the pro level, I think those are potential fits there for them.

And I would even say Hage more than Iserman, because I think you can see a little bit more ways to add kind of those other dimensions there and what you've seen from him so far, right? And there's a world where like a Costa Helenas or Berkeley Cadden gets that far down. I don't think it's likely, but there is a scenario. Interesting. All right, Bill Terrell, Scott wants to know. Do you see anyone in this first round that could resemble a Hosa or Ranton-in-type player? Basically, he elaborates big, super strong on the puck, high hockey IQ and good below the circles.

Worth noting, we may be talking about two Hall of Famers here, but anybody you see, Scott. Yeah, that was going to be my starting point. I mean, there's only, look at the top five. There are two or three forwards being considered in that range. There are two or three forwards that deserve any kind of love that sort of warrants any kind of hosa or ranton and comp. And frankly, Caden Lindstrom plays much differently than those players. Ivan Demodov plays much differently than those players. Macklin Celebrini plays much differently than those players.

Now, are there guys who fit the laundry list of tools that he highlighted there? I think you have to look at, okay, who are the players who are sort of 6-1 to 6-3 forwards that have some talent and play the game with smarts? And even then, it's a short list. We've just talked about Brands like Neegard and Hage. Those kids do a lot of it with them. their athleticism. And Brantzic knee guard's offense is driven primarily through a shot and his ability to get

after it on the forecheck and the cycle and take pucks to the front of the net and that kind of a thing. Hage does it, I would say maybe a little bit less with smarts and more with the sort of skating and speed element and making plays at pace with his skill level. So there isn't really that type of player, at least not at the very, very high end of the draft.

Like you don't want to get into the weeds start talking about William Green Tree or that sort of next tier of players, like the likelihood that those guys are going to be in the top of the lineup players in the way that a hosa or ranting in one, or were, is slim. So there isn't really that profile amongst the forwards. And part of that is because so many of the high-end forwards

in this draft are just sort of the smaller kids, right? Berkeley Caton, Constellanious, even Ivan Demodov isn't the biggest kid. Like, there's just not that, there's not that size piece with a lot of the forwards. And Caden Lindstrom just fits a profile that's pretty unique. Like, he's, Cadens game is about the power and the quick twitch and the skating and the

physicality and the meanness. And I don't think Ranton and Hose have played that style. Corey, Ernie Morris wants to know who has greater high-end long-term potential between Lindstrom and Cole Cillinger. He's curious if Cillinger would be better suited as a three with Lindstrom slotting as a two behind Fantilli in the event Columbus were to draft Lindstrom. And that's obviously if Columbus sees him as a center. Yeah, and I would say the answer is pretty firmly in the direction of Lindstrom.

You know, I quite honestly, I have some long-term questions on Cilinger. I know he had a better bounceback season this year, but he is not a great skater. Walt Lindstrom is one of the best six-foot-three skaters I've seen like the last decade. Like he's an explosive six-three skater, whereas, you know, Cylinger is a mediocre. skating average size player. I think Cylinder is probably smarter than Lindstrom, maybe make some more plays with the puck, but both have meanness.

Both can score. And I just think, like, Lindstrom is just dramatically more athletic to where I think he would fit ahead of him on the depth chart. And then I think you're starting to have questions now. If you draft Lynch, he's your second line center now, which I really like him as a second line center. First line center, it makes me a little bit nervous.

Maybe he's the first line wing. Second line center, I love where he fits in there, particularly with Adam Fantili. Like, man, that's a lot of meanness with Fantili and Lindstrom and Cylinger on the same death chart. That's a group of senators. People don't hate the play games. By the way, Boone Jenner's done that organization too.

So maybe you start flexing guys around. And, you know, there was a world to watch where we thought Ken Johnson was a center. I don't think that's happening right now. But that's a, but, you know, they give them options. But I definitely think Lindstrom fits well ahead of something. It would be fun for the Columbus Blue Jackets after so long of wanting a top center to be the center capital of the NHL. I'll just say that. KW. Sends fans, Scott, wants to know what the optimal age is for a hockey player to be eligible for the NHL draft.

Obviously, right now it's 18, but I think what this question is getting at is would players, would teams be better off if that age was 19, 20, et cetera? I don't love the idea. It's a question I get asked every time I do a mailbag at the I'm plet. It's one of the submissions that's always sent in and sort of, what do you think of the idea of changing the draft age? Certainly the CHL would like it. The CHL in particular would be all over it because it would mean that they get to keep guys,

many of their guys, for an extra season. But no, I mean, the game's getting younger. We're seeing the impact that players like Connor McDavid and Connor Bedard are having. There's always two or three kids outside of the first. overall pick in every draft class that make the jump and surprise to people and have a really strong camp and play nine games. Increasingly, I think that the true top-end guys are actually capable of playing in the league earlier than people even realize.

I think the league is going to continue to trend younger. And so the idea of, A, taking money away from those kids in terms of contracts and RFA years and all of that, I don't love that. But B, I just think we should be leaning into the youth of this sport. We see it every year at the draft. These kids are unbelievably talented. We've got Gavin McKenna around the corner. The idea of Gavin McKenna spending an extra year in junior,

I'm not even sure Gavin McKenna should spend his draft year in junior, frankly. And I think they're going to have to try him at center just to challenge him, something new to do. So there's a lot of that. And those guys are, they're not stopping anytime soon. Like, these kids are unbelievably skilled. So I don't love the idea of moving the draft age to 19. or 20, honestly.

Corey, Nazar of Chicago says, would you consider any of Hagen's, Hensler, Schaefer, Martone, Spence, McQueen, or Mesa, a game breaker? He says, I know Hensler's a defense first defenseman, but all things considered. Talking about next year's draft. Yeah, I'm not sure. I'd agree with that characterization of Hensler, but that's a whole other issue. He's asking about the top prospects eligible for the 2025 NHL draft, presuming, this is a Chicago fan asking this, because he's basically

asking if we were to take a defenseman here at two, presuming that's Artim Blifshunov or maybe Anton Salyev, what kind of forwards are we talking about in next year's draft? And for me, there are two players that I am really excited about, you know, extremely early on knowing a lot can and will change between now and next June. Currently on my list for the 24 draft, I have Macklin Celebrity as my number one ranked player in a group by himself. And then I have Artim Lev Shunov as my number two ranked player in a group. by himself. I would have James Hagan's,

as currently as a prospect, sandwiched in between those two players. I think James Hagan's had some game-breaking qualities. I think he's an elite skater. I think he's got a ton of skill and offensive creativity. He has some dominant offensive characteristics. And then, quite frankly, I would also have Porter Martone from Mississauga,

but now moving from Mississauga, as I think just as we're recording this today, the relocation of the franchise was announced. I think Parra Martone is a game. breaker. I think he is an absolutely, you talked about before, like the Marion Hosa question. Like, I'm not saying he's Marion Hosa, but I think, but he's 6'3 and he can skate. He has elite skill. He's physical. He competes. Like, he can score. Like, that guy is an awesome player. He is a potential power forward type gamebreaker. He is like what you imagine, like what

Kane Lindstrom is now, maybe not quite as fast, but way more skill. Like, it's an exciting athletic package. Is Anton Frundel? I mean, he's, he's, he's, he's, he's, he's, he's, not one of the guys that got named. Is he of that mold at all or not so much? I don't think he elevates at that level of game breaker for me. I think I would like to have watched him at the U-18s to really kind of put, see how they would have compared to those two players, although he did play games, Hagen's at the Five Nations and I played him there, although I don't think that was Hagen's best hockey. I mean, he is in that conversation and then in, I mean, he should have been mentioned in that top group of names that you mentioned. But for me, I think Martone and Higgins are

the way too early, a lot's going to change characterization of potential game breakers in next year's draft. Frundelle's a center or two versus Martone being a winner. I think that'll be a part of the calculus for teams that we're going to be sort of talking about next year. This one's a weird one, Scott. It's from Beast, but I kind of like it. So he says, should the sharks be open to trading their first round pick next season to get a

top D in this draft? They desperately need a number one D in their organization. They're already getting their one. see this year is next year's draft so strong they would not consider this. Usually I would dismiss this out of hand because I think it would be ridiculous, but I could see a team that's picking at like six, seven, eight, really wanting San Jose's first rounder next year. And for San Jose, if there's a player like that available, a player they think is a number one D on their board, I can actually see the rationale here. Normally I would throw this away, but is this crazy?

I don't hate it. I do think the dangerous part of that, game is that the James Hagen's factor there. San Jose is among the most likeliest teams in the league to be 31st or 32nd again next year. Now their likelihood of winning the lottery is less than their likelihood of losing it. That's the same every year. So it's more likely that San Jose is drafting two, three, four a year from now than they are drafting number one. Is there a conversation to be had about those forwards that Corey talked about and

prioritizing a D in this draft, especially when you start to get into the weeds about Logan Hensler. Corey was very polite there about Logan Hensler and his defensive game. It's not his calling card. And I think teams actually really want him to just be firmer and harder, a lot like they wanted Owen Power to be firmer and harder at the same age. But I don't hate it. If we're talking about Zeev Boym versus Anton Frundel and the caveat being that

San Jose desperately needs that premium D prospect in that outside of Shakir Muckmadulin, they really have nothing coming on D. Probably depends on what you think of Luca Kagnoni, but Luca Kagnoni and Zee Blam are in a different stratosphere in terms of prospects. Yeah, I don't, I also don't hate the theoretical idea of it. In practical terms, it would take some real stones if you're San Jose to move off of that pit knowing how bad you're going to be next year and knowing that that pick, if it's not protected,

could be James Higgins. There's a reason it's not going to happen. It's the same reason you don't ever see trades up and trade downs in the top 10, even if it's moving up one or two spots, is because you get evaluated that on the player you do take and then you get evaluated on the player you don't take. That gets used with the pick that you traded.

And so you have two opportunities. to be wrong. And when you're wrong in the top 10, you're really wrong. And it can be catastrophic. So it's just why you just don't see that kind of thing happen. Even if it could make some sense, you could do some calculus of,

well, if you would have number one or two picked next year, what's that work on the open market? Can they get a good defenseman with that asset? But it's way too theoretical. And the risk management is in there for the hockey ops people. All right. that is going to do it for us.

Thanks for listen to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect series. You can obviously read everything Scott and Corey are pumping out on a daily basis now on the draft at Theathletic.com. And you can catch more of Chris over at Flow Hockey and on his podcast, Talking Hockey Sense. We'll talk to you soon.