The Athletic Hockey Show - NHL Draft recap: grades, winners, and losers

Episode Date: June 29, 2025

The 2025 NHL Draft is history after 224 players were picked over the course of two days and seven rounds. Which teams were the standouts? The winners? The losers? Max, Corey, and Scott break it all down and discuss the picks they loved, and the ones they didn’t, what they thought of the decentralized format, and they take top level look at the 2026 class headlined by Gavin McKenna to close things out. Hosts: Max Bultman and Corey PronmanWith: Scott WheelerExecutive Producer: Chris FlanneryProducer: Chris Flannery Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Hey, everybody, Max Boltman here alongside Corey Pranman and Scott Wheeler, and the 2025 NHF draft is now in the books. A lot of good content coming on the site this weekend from both of you guys. I know people are going to be digging into that. But I want to start with kind of some standouts, some winners, Corey, I know your draft grades piece just went up. Three highest grades, probably not a huge surprise to anybody.

The Islander's number one. The next two highest, I think, are interesting. Philly and San Jose. I want to hear about why, but I also kind of want to hear about what goes into this process as a whole. Yeah, I always get a lot of comments and feedback on how the draft grades work, and it's a very straightforward process where I'm basically just assessing who got talent and who didn't. This is not a exercise where I'm trying to calibrate based on value extracted from the draft

slot. I don't care if you did only have a pick at 110, and you got my 8.10. 80th best player. At the end of the day, the 80th best player to draft is not really a prospect. So that doesn't really change the future of your franchise that much. I think at the end of the day, what fans want to know is that my team get better or not this weekend. And I try to reflect that and the scale of which that happens. I also like doing this exercise. It shines a light a little bit on just how the draft works. Like, for example, yesterday, I criticized the best. I criticized the Ben Kindle picked by Pittsburgh at 11.

I don't think Scott agreed with it either, even though he was higher than me on Kindle. But I still like Ben Kindle. He was in a group where I think he's going to play in the NHL and he's going to score in the NHL. Were there players I liked more than him? Would I have taken, like in terms of wingers, would I have taken Carter Bear or Justin Carbono ahead of him? For sure.

But I don't think they are light ears better as a player than a Ben Kindle. So Pittsburgh's grade, which was a B-plus, maybe it's an A-B-B-B-plus. maybe it's an A-minus if they take a guy I like better in a bearer Carbino. But they still picked a bunch of guys throughout the two days of the draft that I think are either going to play in the NHL or I think have good chances to play in the NHL, particularly on day two, where there was just an array of guys where I think they all have varying degrees of realistic chances to play games. That in aggregate, I think they're going to get a lot of games from this class and potentially one or two real players. So even though, like, I think, like, if they would have taken Kindle over like Porter Martout or James Hages, then yes, you cut up their giraffe with a machete and you ask some really hard questions. But when they take them over, you know, Jackson Smith or or Carter Bear or Braden Coots, I disagreed with it, but I don't think it's crazy. All right. So, that's good context, Corey.

So then let's go right into it. I mean, I don't think anyone's surprised to see the Islanders with the high grade, just considering what they did in the first round. But even at the top of round, too, like, there's more talent coming into this system on day two. I really liked what the Islanders did on not only day one where on top of Schaefer, they get Victor Eccl and Kishon Aitchison, who I'm very passionate about. But I think on their day two picks, I think Daniel Prokhov has got a real good chance to be a bottom six-four in the NHL. I think Luca Romano and Thomas Pollitton, their next.

two picks have chances to play. Politans are very competitive player. Burke Hood, I think, is a goal with some NHL traits. I think an aggregate is just a very promising class. I even know some scouts really like Sam Laurel, their fifth round pick, I wasn't quite as high on him, but I just think you look at this class as a whole. There's a lot of talent. There's a lot of competitiveness in this group.

And, you know, for an organization, like we said yesterday, that might seem directionalist at times. at least they come out of this weekend with some excitement for their fans. And at least there's some promise for the next decade here of, okay, if we can continue to do some more good things and accumulate some more premier talent, we could be on a path to being a consistently good team again. Corey and I are in full alignment on the Islanders, too. They were top of my winners and losers.

Look at all 32 teams. and I liked all nine of the picks that they made. Typically, you go through this process, even the draft classes that you like, you like maybe six out of seven. There's always one or two picks where you're like, I don't know about him there with the Islanders. Every time they stepped up and made a pick,

I thought sort of, that's a good range. That's a good pick. So big, big, big, big fan of what they did. I thought they had the best haul on day one, hard not to when you have picks 1,16 and 17, but really, really liked their day two as well. And I think it's a very, very positive start for Matthew Darsh as general manager

in terms of the vision that he's laying out for their amateur scouting side. We will get to San Jose, Corey. And I know that's where the sexy name at the top is in Michael Mesa. But I think Philly is the name that people are going to be a little more surprised to see among this like top top teams, top top grades. What made this class for them reach that level? Well, you know, we discussed yesterday that I'm a big fan at Jack Nesbitt. I know that wasn't a universal opinion, you know, in the public or even with some teams,

but I know a lot of teams liked him and I did as well. I think he has top six four potential. Porter Martone, I think it's a top line wing in the NHL reminiscent of what Phil Forsberg is for Nashville. I think he can be a very similar player. And you go to their day two, like, I don't know, I think Jack Murtog, Shane Fansaggy, Matthew Gard, Carter Amico, I could see one, if not two, NHGELF, players from that group.

I mean, there's a lot of athleticism amongst one of those players, like Amico and Gard are huge and can skate. Van Saggy, he's not a good skater, but he's big, heavy, and really skilled. Jack Murtog's a talented player. Like, I just see a lot of traits in this group. You know, there's a lot of NHL potential from this class. And I know Scott and I might quibble here over Nesbit, but in Amico, I know maybe.

went higher than some people expected. I think of the NHL, that's right around where people expected him to go, quite frankly, even with his injury. I think his freak athleticism, and there's enough puck play there. Wasn't for me, but again, to the draft grade point, like, I don't think it's crazy. Once you get outside the top 20, 25, as long as they have a chance to play, I think we're in agreement that it's a reasonable pick. And I think when you do that over and over again, and you just give yourself more darts of guys with realistic chances to make it, the aggregate class is very promising, especially when you nail the top two picks. And what was the one thing that we talked about with the Flyers coming into this was their pool and NHL depth chart looks probably a little bit smaller than they'd like it to?

And with what, their first six picks of the draft four in the second round and two in the first round, if Jack Murta, who's six feet and we've seen him around the rink is a very, very, very thick, athletic, strong kid. if that's the smallest player, then they've clearly prioritized the size piece of the puzzle here and adding a little bit more, a little bit more of it to the pool. So I can clearly see the vision there. I didn't love, we talked about it on the round one recap, but I didn't love the decision to take Jack Nesbitt at 12. I just couldn't quite wrap my head around him as sort of a 10 to 20 guy versus where I had him, which was that sort of 20 to 30 range on my board all year. And on top of that, they spent assets to go up there and grab him so that you've got to sort of factor that into the calculus. But outside of that, I really liked what they did. I think Martone's a star. And I can see the vision with Matthew Guard and Shane Van Sacki. Like one of those two guys is going to play on their fourth line someday. Maybe both of them, if all goes well. So I understand the sort of vision that they had, even if I couldn't quite get there on Nesbit.

On the size front, interestingly, I think this is going to be known as the size draft. A little bit, yeah. On the draft and aggregate, I think our report's line poured out to that they set a record for the most players drafted who were six, five or taller. And I think there were no defenseman pick with a five in their height column at all. So it wasn't just the flyers. it seemed like this was a league-wide trend of going towards the bigger players. Cameron Reed's really, really happy about that extra 0.25 that he got at the Combine after being listed at 511.75 all year. Or maybe he's not because then he doesn't win one for the little guy.

I did want to ask you one follow up about Vinceagi, Corey, because he's a player. I saw head-to-head against Will Horcough in Detroit this year. And I didn't feel like there was like a whole round gap between those two players. Like, what is the biggest difference in your mind between those two? I think some scouts would argue that Horcough was a U-18 and Van Zaggi's a late birth, so that's a variable there. Horcoff is bigger. Like, he's at least two inches bigger. Fansaggy probably plays heavier, but with Horikov, you're like, okay, well, he's a 17-year-old.

He's 6-4, maybe closer to 6-5 with that kind of skill. I think that's kind of more like the dream there. Like, look how good he was in the second half there in Michigan for his tools and his age. I think that's the argument. And I agree, I had them closer than they actually went. in alignment with you, but that would have been the argument. All right, let's go to San Jose now, and obviously it starts with Bisa, and I think we touched on that a little bit last night.

But you also give them a pretty high grade, and, you know, they obviously start this draft. We talked about the need for a defenseman. They start out day two by taking a really, really big defense bit at Houchi Wong. Yep. He's a great player, you know, huge, mobile, physical. He's a key was, you know, there was that run of six, five, six, six, six defensemen. that all kind of went in a row there.

Amico, Piznika, Kettles, and Wong starts it off. And I think when we talked to teams, they thought he was going to be potentially the first one just because they felt he was more defined in his role. He wasn't trying to be an offense guy. He was trying to be a physical, hard to play against third pair guy. You know, often when I watched Wong, I compared him to Niko Mikula with the type of player that he could potentially be

and probably didn't hurt that. and amicus is winning rings. And so I'm not surprised they went there. In terms of defensemen, I also really liked. One of my pet favorites in this process was Ilius Magel Mitz-Seltano from Locomotive. I thought he looked really impressive with the Russian U-20 team towards the end of the year. He's a fantastic skater with size. And I thought his puck play looked better towards the end of the year, even though his production

was terrible. And then they get Cole McKinney at 53. Where there was one point we were talking about him at one point as a late first rounder. I think the offense didn't come this year, and especially with a guy who's not that big. I understand why he slid a little bit, but I absolutely see a path for him to being a bottom six four in the NHL. So all that in aggregate with a guy who I think could be a starting goalie in Ravensburg and then a guy who I think who has star potential as well in Michael Mesa, I think you look at the Sharks class and you look at really what they're building in general.

I think the team's still pretty bad. Don't get me wrong and it's probably going to be bad for quite a few more years. But I think you start looking at this collection of talent now that they have in the NHL with this class, with Sam Dickinson coming. And you can see a clear plan being executed by the career management group. How about you, Scott? Who were your big winners today? I'm sure there's some overlap. But anybody, Corey, didn't mention that you feel you really want to highlight. Oh, the Islanders, I felt, were the clear sort of number one. I don't rank them one through 32 when I do my winners and losers, but I sort of slot them all into into one of four categories,

and they were right at the top of my winners. I think the sharks are right there with them. There were other drafts that I like, but in terms of the pure sort of overall haul, I just don't think they stack up with what San Jose and the Islanders are sort of coming away with. Like, I liked what the Calgary Flames did. I thought it was important that they target a center,

with their first rounders, and they did that with two players that I believe in, including Colin Potter, who not everybody believes in, but who I think because of his skill and skating has a real opportunity. I liked some of the guys that they got on day two. I liked what the Seattle Cracken did with their run after taking Jake O'Brien at eight with their run of, what was it, four or five defensemen in a row in the middle rounds. But I kept coming back.

When I was putting it together, I kept coming back to the island. Islanders and just how excited I would be if I were an Islanders fan about the head start that they've got on whatever this next process looks like. And I know Matthew Darsh said yesterday, which kind of surprised me a little bit, that he doesn't believe they're going to enter into a rebuild, which I think would maybe be a mistake. But even if you don't enter into a rebuild, suddenly you've got a really, really exciting collection of players to sort of build with here. So they were right at the top.

There were certainly a couple of teams further down. I don't know whether we want to get into that. It's a couple of teams that I thought did a really poor job. But I think Corey and I are mostly an alignment on the winners or the high grades, so to speak. Yeah, let's make some enemies. Who you got? For the second year in a row, I really, I don't see the vision with the Leafs. Now, it's a different scouting director.

It was West Clark a year ago. There's been some changeover even at their sort of regional level with their amateur scouts. I like Tyler Hopkins as a player who they took in the middle rounds there. I think Tyler has a chance to be a bottom six player in the NHL, very detail-oriented center. Not a lot of offense there, and they know in Kingston that they need to develop him on the offensive side of the game a little bit. But one of the more well-rounded, complete, competitive centers in this age group. And I thought in the third round that Hopkins was a really strong pick. But the Leafs for the last couple of years, frankly, have just picked a ton of.

of kids that I don't view at all as prospects. And I think we saw now the vision under Bradtree living in terms of how he wants the amateur side to look. And like, I just don't view guys like William Bell as prospects. And they clearly said it with Harry Nancy, same thing. They clearly set out to sort of, they've talked a lot about identity in Toronto in the last couple of months. and I think they set out to add competitive, like the super ultra-competitive types. But with players like Bell and Nancy, I think you're chasing that a little bit

at the expense of everything else that goes into being a hockey player. So I just don't see what the vision is there in Toronto in terms of what they're trying to accomplish in their first draft under this new amateur staff. I thought a little harsh on a team that's first pick was at 64. I mean, like, what did you expect them to get in this draft? Hold on.

You just said, that you don't care if a team had the 110th pick and got the 80 best player. But my point is like that my point about that is like if you don't have a pick until then, you're not going to get anything. So like I don't know like what's Toronto supposed to get in this draft? What was available at 64 and when Hopkins pick that you think would have substantially changed your opinion, Scott? There will be player, there were players in all seven rounds of this draft that I think have a legitimate chance to play in the NHL rounds three through seven. There were a ton of players in that range that I think have real opportunities.

And they didn't pick a single player who I think has other than maybe Hopkins, who I think has, has that kind of a chance. And why so harsh? I think the answer to that question is that this was, they've talked a big game in Toronto. I'm, I'm maybe sensitive to it having sort of being in that in that marketplace from a media standpoint. But they've talked a lot and sort of pump their chess about the changes that they're going to make. and this was one of the first real indications of Brad Chu living and what he wants to do on the amateur side and a new scouting director. And I think there are relevant takeaways to take away from that.

And the takeaways were that they're clearly after a certain type of player. And I'm not sure how far that that direction is going to take them on the amateur side. What was the lowest grade you gave out, Corey? Colorado. I didn't draft a guy that I really had as a rate as a lot. a prospect, but I thought Toronto drafted two guys I had rated it as a prospect. And I don't know. I must say, like, could there have been a scenario where they could have taken guys I was

a little bit more excited about? Like, sure. But I, like, there's often, I was a scenario for Edmonton, for New Jersey. Like, if you don't have picks, it's, it's hard to get excited about the class. Like, I think Cobbler's got a chance, kind of as Luke Cobler's got a chance to play. I think Hopkins got a chance. But, I mean, that's, that's pretty much it. But so, like, I'm not saying it's an exciting group.

I just like, I just don't know how you're supposed to realistically be excited when you don't really pick until almost all the talent is God. All right. All right. Let's take a quick break right there. We'll be right back. We're going to talk about the surprise picks and the picks that you guys loved on day two. All right. We're back.

We're going to play a little game here. So I want from each of you to start off the pick you loved the most on day two of the draft. Corey, we'll start with you. That would probably be Blake Fiddler. who Seattle took him in the first 10 picks in the second round. He was a guy we thought could have gone in the late first. He ends up not going. I think teams were pretty concerned by his hockey sense.

But I still see 6-4. I think at the combat he measured closer to 6-5, actually, mobile defenseman, who I thought was one of USA's better players at the World U18 Championships. He's not super physical, but I think he competes well enough. There's enough skill there that I see a path for him to becoming a four or five defensemen in the league. And he's after, you know, I don't, I think Seattle made the right decision taking Jake O'Brien at eight and not go into a Redine Merker or Jackson Smith because that would have been a significant drop off in talent. But after that, you, you know, you look at the system, there's a desperate need for a top defense prospect.

And I'm not saying he's a premier defense prospect, but he's something they really needed. and they got a fit on need and on talent. For me, it was a really good spot to get him because I think he's going to play in the NHL. Scott, pick you loved on day two. There were two picks that I really liked on day two. The first was Milton Gastron to the Washington Capitals at 37. The Capitals have drafted a lot of very unique,

almost different prospects over the last couple of years, whether it was Andrew Crystal, Cole Hudson, even Terek Parasak. They've taken some cuts at the draft, and as a result of that, they've drafted a number of wingers that they felt had slipped at the draft. I liked the decision to go after

a more projectable sort of safe, quote unquote, player in Gastron, who I think has a real opportunity to be a 3C of the future for that organization. So I liked the Gastron pick at 37. He was kind of an early second rounder for me through the first part of the season, but kind of sold me as the year

went on as a late first guy on my list. And I felt like if he was going to linger into the 30s that someone was going to get a future NHL player, which I think in this draft is important. And the other one, for similar reasons, just in terms of getting a future NHL player, I thought that Malcolm Spence lingered a little bit longer than he should have. And I know people are a little bit concerned about the late birthday who doesn't have, who's six feet and 200 pounds and doesn't have that this sort of, dynamic quality in his game offensively, but he's a plus skater. He's a plus competitor.

He's probably going to play at 210 or 215 pounds. Everybody credits him for his work ethic and the way that he gets after it. And I think he's up and down the lineup top nine forward all day in the NHL. And if not, certainly a sort of third line winger in the NHL. And I, in the second round where he was, I liked that. But the one, the thing I really had my eye on in this draft class, not that they were necessarily my favorite picks, but really had my eye on the three little guys, and we talked about the size off the top, and lo and behold, those little guys all lingered

as we anticipated they would. And yet I think in each, there might be some value there someday. I'm not counting out, even L.J. Mooney, who was of the three, the player who I thought performed and showed us the least this year,

in large part due to injury, before really finishing strong at U18 Worlds. Even LJ, I think, with his skating and his smarts and the way that he gets after it and his competitiveness, I would not be surprised if he plays NHL games someday. And certainly I think Cameron Schmidt and Adam Panache have that chance. And I know Adam's coming up to play in the CHL next year, and I think that will be good for him.

But all of those guys lingered to the fourth round. Two of them went in the fourth, and then obviously LJ and the 6. So I thought that was interesting because I think even if all of the kids in those ranges in that four to six round range are long shots to play in the NHL, I think they are perhaps, even at 5 foot seven, lesser long shots than many of the players who were taken around them. So you get to a point in the draft where you're rolling the dice on all of these kids. And those were kids that in that specifically in that round four to six range, I thought it was an interesting dice roll. All right, then I want Corey, the pick that surprised you the most today.

Probably it would have been Charlie Charato going 49 to Carolina. And he had a huge year at Penn State. I knew he was getting drafted. I just think second round to me is not indicative of a player he is. There's a reason he went through the draft twice, and I think he showed way more offense this year than we previously thought he had. much smarter than I probably thought he was before. Like he's still,

while still showing a good skating and a good compete level, but I still look at a 60, maybe 511 forward, not really dynamic. Wouldn't, you know, he's got skill and offense, but I wouldn't call him premier level non-natural finisher. I would have some concerns there.

And I kind of wonder if he almost comes back to Earth a little bit next season. How about you, Scott, surprise pick today? So maybe it, a surprise pick, but a player that I was surprised didn't get picked. And we've talked so much about size in this draft and the number of big defensemen that were taken in this draft, including well into round six and seven players who, there were, frankly, there were players in the OHL that I watched this year, who I thought struggled as OHL players who were taken in round

six, seven in this class. So the one player that I was maybe a little surprised from my list, there were five players on my list who didn't get picked, but four of them, I kind of half expected it or thought they might be sort of round six, seven candidates. The one player who I thought was going to get picked was Owen Conrad of the Charlottetown Islanders, six four defensemen, 200 plus pounds. His boots and his feet are a little bit heavy. And I think that might have scared some teams off. But there were also other kids in this draft class who were big and have that same issue

and have accomplished less and played fewer minutes for their respective teams and all of that who got picked. So I thought he was with the way that the game is. going. I thought that Conrad was going to get picked. He plays huge minutes in the QMJHL. I think he'll play big minutes next year. I could see him having a big follow-up season similar to what Thomas Lavois, a former first overall pick into the QMJL who sort of lost some of that status into his draft year year and then was drafted in the middle rounds a year ago by Utah and is now signed by Utah after having a really promising post-draft season. The same concerns about Lavois were

sort of heavier kid, maybe doesn't move like in any, like you want an NHL defenseman to move. And then Lavois had a big, big year and was one of the better D in the league. And I wouldn't be surprised if Conrad was one of the 10 best defensemen in the QMJL for next year, for example. So, or if he got selected as an overage or next year. So he was kind of the, the one that surprised me. I will say I wasn't super surprised by Serato in the in the second round, though. I thought he was going to go sort of late second, early third. And I know there was, I know one team in particular that was prepared to take him shortly after, shortly after the hurricanes did.

So we'll see what he does next year. I do think there's a risk that he does, to Corey's point, takes a bit of a regression next year at Penn State. Everything kind of went perfectly for him. But, I mean, if you're a top six center as a freshman on a Frozen 4 team, you're a legit player. All right. So we've had about not quite 24 hours, probably about 20 hours to digest. some of the surprise picks from day one. So we'll stick on that theme.

And I want to hear, Corey, first of all, 24 hours to be. I think the one that was the most surprising yesterday was at 20, with Columbus taking the goaltender Peter Andrianov, not just in the first round, but as the first goalie, with a day to reflect on this, where are you at on this pick? Yeah, when you ever something like truly surprises you, and by surprise, I mean, you're like, whoa, you know, we disagree. We have our own ratings.

we have our own projections of how we think the draft's going to go, but we realize it's an inexact science and things, everyone has their own preferences and approaches. But you know there should be a range of outcomes, and I don't think, I thought Frolov could get there. I didn't think Andrianov was going to get here. So that was outside the range of outcomes I expected. So you make calls about this afterwards.

You watch, you know, this morning, I was watching video, more video on him. You sent around texts around the league, and try to get a feel. But I find I've had a tendency to do, when something surprises me, I found I've had a tendency to quickly walk back at times or hedge. And I'm not, I'm digging in. I thought it was a mistake.

I thought it was a big mistake, actually. I don't, like riddle me this guys. If you really believe in this player and like you, and I'm not sure that I do, but let's say you did. Let's say you're the color of blue jackets. You love this player. I'm high on Andreonov for what it's worth. He was in the 30s on my list and was my second goalie after Ravensburg.

And I had him ahead of Ivan Kovic and Frolov. And I think he's a stud. Well, that's where I'm going with this. Like, if you think he's super athletic, super great technique, super, you know, competitive and intelligent, like at that size, he's basically Ivan Kovic. Like, I mean, that's the profile we have for Ivan Kovic. Ivan Kovic goes late second round. I just don't see why if you can.

came to that conclusion on Andriano of why it was worth a shot at 20. Like that to me just didn't make sense. And like I think there's so much risks on that profile projecting to the NHL at that size. There's almost no history of a 6-0 goalie going in the first round in recent history. Sometimes those guys make it. Sometimes those guys don't. I don't think the risk justified the reward. Even if you think he's Yusay Soros.

like USASR always went in the third round for a reason. I know people who would make the case that you shouldn't even take a 6-4 stud goalie there, right? Like obviously Ravensberg and didn't even go there. I think you can look back on that draft where Kosa and Walsett both went in the 15 to 25 range. And if you had truth serum, would Detroit and Minnesota still make those picks today, even on two goalies that I think were much more chalk to go in that range. And Columbus has got to wait at least five years for this player, just based on his contract in the KHL right now.

Scott, I mean, you're the high guy and Adriana if you're like, do you want to respond to that? Well, everybody always says there's a reason Saros goes in the third round and there's a reason Dustin Wolf goes in the seventh round and Devon Levi goes in the seventh round and all of these guys that are starting to have success at that position. And yet maybe it's the wrong reason. Levi's had success? For a seventh round pick, certainly getting signed and playing NHL games is a success, even if he's not sort of fully realized. it at the NHL level. Certainly, Dustin Wolf is one of the best young goalies in the sport right now. So I do see it. I mean, Yaroslav Halak had a long career as a 6-0 goalie in the league. There are guys that do it all the time. And if they're constantly being undervalued and there's maybe a recalibration of that to start taking Ivan Kovic in the second round instead of in the seventh round and a goalie who's accomplished what Andrianov has accomplished at the MHL level with 940 save percentages. And, being the top goalie in a in a Russian league and in a country that has a history of producing goalies. Like I can I can see the argument for some of those guys belonging higher and and it being

a market inefficiency that teams are overcompensating for and that it's something that there needs to be a bit of a course correction on. Now course correcting to 20th overall in the draft is it is a completely different thing. They will we will all look back on that pick poorly if he doesn't become a starter in the NHL. So you're putting a lot of pressure on that kid. And I agree that 20 was early. I wonder even whether they could have moved back and got him sort of in the early 30s, closer to where Frolov went at 41.

But if they felt that they had to get a goalie and that Sergey Ivanov and Evan Gardner, two other smaller goalies within the and Jet Greaves, who plays in the NHL for them, that's three, now four. six foot, five, eleven, six foot goalies within the Blue Jackets organization. So it's clearly not something that they're worried about. But if you don't believe that Gardner and Ivanov are your goalie of the future, or that Jet Greaves is your goalie of the future, which I think Jet is just sort of a backup in the NHL kind of thing. And I like Gardner a lot. Ivanov's been one of the best young goalies in Russia as well. But those guys aren't, aren't Andreianov, and they felt that they

needed to prioritize it. So I can understand the thought. process with with Andrianov, even if 20 is certainly high for, for a goalie. My argument was that even if you give him the benefit of the doubt, I think he should have gone in the second round because that's like where Ivan Kovic was going. And I think if you give him this guy the most benefit of the doubt, that was his, that was his range, that was where the talent dictates he should have gone. And I thought they left a lot of value on the table. That was my only argument. Whether you even agree with the assessment and not is not really the question. I mean, I loved Evan Kovic. You did too. I don't think either of us would take about

20. I would say, well, yeah, I would say that Andrianov is a better prospect than Ivan Kovic. So I think it's, there's a bit of happen. You have a lot, like four spots ahead on your list? No, I've got him like, I had him like 15 spots ahead. Okay. Gotcha. One was early second. One was late second. But yeah, comparable, comparable tier. But I do think Androov's a better prospect. And in terms of numbers and the production piece of it has, has like stopped the puck at a higher level domestically. the Russian goal is always produced in that league. That league is like nutty when it comes to save percentage numbers. Yeah, not 940, 945 save percentage numbers.

Like I think there is some worry with Ivan Kovic, as great as he's been for hockey Canada, that the numbers haven't popped at the OHL level the way that Dustin Wolfe did in Everett, for example. All right. And then we don't need to spend a little longer on this one last night, I think. But just, again, with some time to reflect on the Kindle pick, anything kind of new come to you on that one. It's tough because I think the argument that I found has been most convincing has been comparing Kindle to Cole Reschney, who went seven spots later.

And it's hard to think of a point in time where Reschney has been outperformed by Kindle at a level. I mean, maybe Scott disagrees, but I just, you know, Reschney's a center. I don't think Kindle is that really that much faster. it's like I think the argument for Kindle is like you look at what Vancouver thought when they picked like Lekaramaki or what Buffalo thought when they picked Noah Ocelain and you're thinking you're going to get this you know really skilled cerebral score and the case of a like an Ocelain someone who competes hard I think there's some prayer some people think Kindle could be a center I don't know whether that's realistic or not in the NHL but like that's the vision I think in in that pick whether I agree

with it. I don't. Still don't. I think he's a good player. I think there's a lot he still needs to prove, though, to justify that selection. But to my earlier point, like, I at least think he's going to be good player. I think he's going to play for the penguins and score for the penguins. I don't think he's a, it's not a pick where I'm, like, asking really hard questions of the organization like I was with the Andrianna of one. I kind of feel the same way about Kindle that I did, Knight of. I love Kindle and the smarts and the way that he thinks the game. I do think he has a chance to be a center in the NHL. It would be a pretty unique player if he does do that.

But he really benefited, I thought, from the move after a 16-year-old season at the wing, the move to center in the WHL now center in junior hockey and center in the NHL are very, very different things. But when the puck is on his stick and plays flows through him, he thinks it at such a high level that I think he makes his linemates better. and that's ultimately what you want as a center. So if he can get strong enough and competent enough in the face off circle and that kind of a thing, I think that's at least a potential outcome for him. But I still think at 11, you need him to become a star.

And especially if you're a penguins. Like this isn't an organization that has a loaded pool and the San Jose sharks taking a swing on Simon Wang at 33rd overall because they can afford to or you go through. They have to make sure that pick is a stud, not just a second-line player in the league, but like an impact, impact, high-end guy. And I think Kindle projects as a potential second-line player in the league, and maybe that's a pick that you can live with if he is at 11. But if he's not that.

But there were no studs left. I think Jackson Smith and Kishan and Victor Eklund, and I think there were players in that range that have a chance to be excellent, excellent. in NHL players. Justin Carboneau. I agree on Eklund. I just be like, I think in their eyes, they're probably thinking all the premier guys here are gone. They didn't have Eklin there, obviously. I do.

You do too, but I don't think they did. I think that was their argument. And that's why I think we heard for so long they were aggressively trying to get up into that group to try to get one of the premier guys. Also, as I decided, I just looked this up. You have Andrean of 39 and Ivan Kovic 42 on your list, just as an FYI. I thought I had Ivan COVID, like, back of the

40s, early 50s. No, that's okay. Well, we're going to take a quick break to double-check all of our lists, and then we're going to come back and talk about 2026. All right, we are back. And before we let everybody go, I want to look ahead to next year's draft. Before we start talking about the players, I think we need to talk about the other element of next year's draft and whether it's going to be back to what we've been used to,

everybody in person, everybody in one room, or do you think, Corey, that we're going to stick with this decentralized draft? After two days of this, I know there can't possibly be an actual scoop here to be had, But what do you think? It's felt like we've been battling towards going back to the old way, even before we even saw what they were going to do this weekend. I think it was a self-inflicted injury by the NHL. They fixed a problem nobody was complaining about other than maybe a handful of owners and managers.

I think it's ridiculous that the NHL now has no major event where the whole league comes together. which all the other sports have. And some would say, well, we still have the NHL combine, but the other sports don't have it while have their combines going on while the season is still going on. So that's, I think, the big distinction there. And I think we need to have that camaraderie back. And I think the average hockey fan is not tuning in to see whether Jake O'Brien

or Rudy Merca is going eighth overall. I think they tune in to watch the NHL draft because there's a lot of familiar faces that they can see and interact with each other, and it's a spectacle, and it's entertaining. I think NHL tried its best to be entertaining on day one. I think most people would agree it was awkward and hard to watch at times. That being said, I thought day two, they absolutely learned their lessons from the COVID-year drafts. That was way more efficient and streamlined than I thought it was going to be, and it dragged on a little bit longer than the live drafts, but it definitely wasn't the seven-hour marathon that we had during the COVID years and definitely seemed way more efficient

in how it was being executed. So I can see the appeal from that perspective. And I could see if they maybe tweaked some things in the day one, i.e. the awkward Zoom interviews or some other elements that I could see them, the argument to trying this again. But I really think the league, just talk to people around the league, like people who work at various levels in the sports, and outside the NHL, there is this deep, I think, want to have the live draft back because it was really like this giant NHL conference

for everybody who works in the sport to all be there in one place. It's an opportunity for people who work at all different levels, business, agents, scouts, media, executives to interact with each other in a way that they never get to. And it develops relationships that are unique

and you get to interact with the fans too. It's just a really unique experience, and I think it's absolutely absurd that they went away from that, even though I think there is a way to make this event interesting for the decentralized way. I understand why some managers, i.e., like the one you work with, Max, wants to stay decentralized because they feel it's calmer and they can talk with their scouts easier, and they can do trades in a more covert fashion. I understand that appeal, but it's a worse event. We need the live event back. And I hope it's coming back.

Yeah, I'm completely with you on that. Like, it's no secret I hated this entire weekend. I thought this was, you know, just not, didn't do it for me at all as a TV product. Even though it was, it ended up being, but I think it was still five hours, which is, granted, it's still two hours shorter than the day two of COVID, of the COVID drafts were. It's still too long, too drawn out. And even on day one, like, it just was not compelling. And I think if you're, I think the reason that they did the Zoom interviews, like that draft house thing, is to kind of try to remedy what Corey is talking about where you can still kind of get those familiar faces.

But I don't think that's what people like seeing. I think if anything, you would almost need like a control room where the producers of the TV product had like genuinely like complete discretion to toggle to different draft rooms, look inside of it and actually see them like milling about, talking about guys, arguing, whatever it might be. that's more, I think, in line with why having everyone on the floor and stuff works as a TV product. I'm not even going to get into why I like it better for an in-person draft. I don't think fans really care about that, but as a TV product, it was sterile for that reason, I thought. I think there's a real chance we're back to a centralized draft next year. And if that's not the case, I would expect that the reason for it is because of the Olympics and the condensed schedule that's going to be sort of at the focal point of next year. season and just too many, too many events in two few days to, to squeeze everything in.

Moving forward, it sounds like the league is committed to getting the NHL season started three, four days earlier. And even that, even if it's not a week earlier, even if it's three or four days earlier, I think that gives them enough wiggle room to have a little bit more space between the NHL draft and free agency. I would expect if we go back to a centralized format, that it's in major airport travel cities like Dallas and Vegas on a more consistent basis or even a potential rotation, Montreal.

But I think we're going back. The feeling I get from everybody I've spoken to this week in Los Angeles is that they're already sort of talking to the league or if they aren't connected to the league that they're that are involved in the game who are more connected that this just didn't work. And it's important for the league to get back to a really impressive draft product. And what they have been doing for a long, long time was a very impressive draft product. Earlier this season, I kind of had like a civil debate with a general manager who was in favor of keeping the decentralized format going forward. And on top of the privacy, you get to, you know, don't need to be looking over your shoulder, et cetera, argument.

The other big one, which wasn't money that was being cited, was the proximity to free agency. and the headache that that creates. And it's like, well, you can't change that. It's in the CBA. To my argument, I was like, well, we've got a CBA negotiation coming up. You could always just put that in there. And I don't know what this new CBA agreement they came to was. But I hope they addressed some flexibility between the draft and free agency.

That seems to be such a big issue for everybody. All right. Well, regardless of whether we are in our home offices or somewhere else next year, Scott, I know you're still at the draft. I want to talk about the players that we're going to be talking about for the next year. And I know it's early. I know a lot can change at this time last year. The lists look quite different to how the order went on Friday night.

But Corey, just big top level, 3,000-foot view. What should people know about next year's draft class? Obviously, the name that everyone's going to be familiar with it is Gavin McKenna. You know, he's a true star prospect, legit number one overall pick, incredibly dynamic player. Elite skill, lead hockey sense, great skater. He's going to light up college hockey next year,

you know, at whatever school he chooses to go to. What I think is to be interesting about next year's draft is we thought 2020 was the year of the defense. And we knew that going in, so that was

2012, sorry. In 2025, I think we kind of knew was the year of the center. And we knew that going into the draft. Looking ahead to the 2006 draft, it kind of looks like the year of the winger, which I don't think at the outset is overly exciting to hear, but those wingers are really good, like really good. Ryan Rubrik, Ethan Belketz, and Ivers Denberg are all premier talents.

Mathis Preston is awesome. And there are some premium position guys there. Keaton Verhoff is the second best prospect, I think, or in the conversation for next year's He's going to play big minutes in North Dakota next year. And quite frankly, there's some people I talk to in the league who already think there's an argument to be made that if he has a good year, he'll push McKenna, whether you believe that or not. We can debate that over the next 12 months. But those people are crazy. Yeah, well, he's huge and he's mobile.

And again, we don't need to call people crazy at this stage because we got a long way to go on this. And then I think at center, you have Tyne Lawrence, who was the MVP of the USHL playoffs last year. And he's an outstanding player. He's a little bit on the smaller side, but he is a center. But I think that's going to be interesting things. I think there's some really talented players in next year's draft, but I do think at least at the outset, things could change. We'll see how Ryan Lynn does, Carson Carrolls, Daxon Rudolph,

a bunch of other Vigo Bjork, etc. Well, guys will emerge as they always do every year. You know, we weren't talking about Jacob Bryan's potential top five range last year. Brady Martin, for example. Things change. Navatney's a player. Yeah, I don't have him at that range, but I don't know. I think he's more of a wing, though.

isn't he? Yeah. So that's more my point, premium position, guys, is you will see. But at the moment, it looks like a lot of wingers for next year. Scott, I know you hate characterizing drafts as above average or below average, especially this far out. But given that, I mean, whether we're talking about position or not, like talent-wise, I think my sense from talking to you both is you both kind of see it as a fairly comparable talent level to what this class was. Is that fair, Scott? Yeah, I think McKenna's the distinction for me. I know I'm constantly beating the drum of how ridiculous I think it is that people talk in absolutes about drafts a year out from the draft in terms of next year's class is so much better than this year's class.

When players like Brady Martin and Beckett Seneca, all these guys sort of pop out of the woodworks and others struggle and take steps back. and we're not talking about our top of the 20-25 draft, like anything like we were talking about it a year ago with James Hagen's and Porter Martone is the sort of presumptive one, two picks and ultimately the sixth and seventh picks in this actual draft. So a lot is still going to change. But in saying that, I still truly do believe that McKenna is the difference. I think McKenna is a special, special talent.

We'll see what two. through 10 looks like next year. I think it's still very early for that. I've got a lot of time for Ryan Lynn and that W.H.L. crop of D that Corey mentioned at the tail end of that. I think Ryan Lynn has a chance to be in that premium group right at the top, not necessarily with Verhofer Stenberg, but sort of right there in that next group. So we'll see how it all shakes out.

There are some players in next year's draft. I think Tinen Lawrence is a stud. but I do think that when we look back at next year's draft versus this year's draft, even if Matthew Schaefer and Michael Mesa light the world on fire next year, I think Gavin McKenna is a completely franchise-altering level of talent. I think McKenna's definitely better than Schaefer. I don't think he's miles better, but again, we don't need to get into that right this second. I do think, though, that the top players in next year's draft, or at least analogous,

after the ones, I think they're analogous, that two to five range. I'm going to put it on the early record that I'm not convinced about Ethan Belketz as well. All right. Well, we'll leave it off there from the 2025 NHL draft. Thanks so much for sticking with us all through this cycle, both on Theathletic.com and here on the podcast.

Jesse Granger, Rob Rossi, and Shana Goldman will be going to be with you on Monday to look ahead to free agency on the next episode of The Athletic Hockey Show. Thanks to listen to this one. We'll talk to you soon. Thank you.