The Athletic Hockey Show - NHL Mock Draft 2.0, Corey’s latest interactive prospect rankings, the 2023 defense class, top prospect comparables, and more

Episode Date: June 2, 2023

Max and Corey are back in this week’s Prospect Series episode of The Athletic Hockey Show to discuss Corey’s NHL Mock Draft 2.0 with some movement in the top 4, this year’s defense class, Corey���s latest interactive prospect rankings, as well as comparables for guys like Connor Bedard, Matvei Michkov, David Reinbacher, and more.Subscribe to The Athletic Hockey Show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowGet a 1-year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month when you visit http://theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Hey, everybody. Max Bultman here alongside Corey Prondman for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show's Prospect Series. Corey, you have been grinding. It is your busy season. A couple of big articles from you out this week. Your gorgeous new draft rankings, which I would really encourage people to go check out. I don't think Corey did the coding himself, but maybe I'm wrong. But very cool. It's super cool interactive ranking. I think you're going to love it if you haven't seen it already. And then mock draft 2.0, which I can't say mock draft 2.0 and not start there.

I think the listeners would revolt, Corey. So let's get right into that. What are in your mind kind of the big changes here from edition 1.0? Right at the top, it's that I think the really strong ploy of Leo Carlson at the World Championships. I would have been between mocking Will Smith from the U.S. program or him at the three spot. And I think Leo Carlson is now at the three spots following his really strong play, down the middle for Sweden at the World Championships. And frankly, I think you can even argue him up to number two.

I think that's not where he is on my personal big board, but I think there's a lot of people in the league who are really enamored with this player. And I think Anaheim at the minimum has to have a very serious conference. about him at two. So I think that is one of the biggest changes there. And end result is Will Smith goes at four to San Jose. I mocked Nate Danielson at seven. I think he was either like 10 or 11 last time.

And I think trying to find his landing spot's been a little difficult. I know there are some teams in the league who are a little, you know, not as optimistic on him as I am. but I know there are some teams in the league who are major fans of this player and I think he will go that high in the draft, whether it's 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, somewhere in that range and try to find his exact landing spot, you know, with another center high up there, Dalbordivorski.

In my experience, premium centers and premium defense prospects go very fast. So it's just a matter of the right spot, whether it's Philadelphia, Washington, Detroit, St. Louis, Vancouver, I kind of feel like somewhere in that area he is going to go. But the big question remains my name, Mishkoff. And like in the first Moth, he goes at 8 to Washington. I haven't gotten any extremely new information to change that projection. I think there are people in the league who still think he's going to slide.

I did see that great interview that TVA did with various people from the SCA organization about Mitchcove. and I but I just again my conversations all year with hockey people I just I have some reservations he's going to go where his town dictates he should go with an extremely premium pick but we will see it a couple of weeks what happens there and the other

but that being said I still have two Russians going fairly early in Daniel Bout and Dimitri Simechest I don't think there is complete reservation within the league on Russians I just think that high in the draft you're talking premium premium names and guys who you, if you pick it four, five, six, you are picking a guy you think it could be an impact player of your organization.

I just don't know for sure if teams are going to take that dive, but I could be wrong. Like I don't know what San Jose, Montreal, Arizona, Philadelphia is going to do. I don't, like maybe if we get closer to the draft, the information will get a little bit better. Teams have either just had their meetings or still in the process of having meetings. so I don't have extremely good information yet on that front. But that's, I would say, one of the still the big mysteries of the draft is how Michkov will dictate the top 10.

We went in depth on Mitchcov in that whole situation last week, which I strongly encourage people to go listen to with Corey and Chris Peters, given some really good context to all this. But Corey, when you talk about that uncertainty in that alleyway, you know, maybe it's at San Jose at 4, although there's still kind of that sense that Will Smith maybe is worth that distinction. But when you get into Montreal, Arizona, Philly, we talk all the time on this show about how trades in this range do not happen.

But it does seem like that has to be an option you're strongly considering if you're those teams. Yeah, I think any team, you know, from 10 to 15, 10 to 20, I think they need to have a plan in place if they are prepared to take that risk. I think that's the thing that I've noticed in the league. I can't tell you where Mitch Goff is going to go. I wish I knew because that would be a really useful information to report. But I don't know. But what I can't say is I know there are organizations in the league that are squeamish on the idea of taking them up the very high pick.

I know their organizations in the league that would be very excited to do that. And I just don't know where, say, Montreal, San Jose, Arizona, Philly. I think Washington have a fairly good idea. But those organizations, I don't know. where they land on that question. And I just think if you're picking a little bit later, I think you are one of those organizations that would be really excited to get that player.

I think you need to have a plan in place to potentially go up and get him because he's a rare type of offensive talent. And I would say, given the uniqueness of this draft where you have, you know, several,

names a couple of more than usual, whereas, you know, in last year's draft, you're talking about, oh, man, do I got a trip to number one overall to go get this guy? And maybe Slefkowski goes, you know, do I need to go up to two to get this guy? You can get up to maybe five or six to get this guy in this draft. And he's a very, you know, unique offensive talent, not a great skater, not that big. We've been over that before. But I think it presents a unique opportunity for an organization picking in the teens to somehow acquire a player this caliber.

Yeah. Let's go back to one of the first things you said with this mock, which was Leo Carlson's kind of post-world championship rise. You mentioned he's at three here to Columbus. I want to know how serious is the idea that this could be someone Anaheim even considers it, which would for Columbus totally change the game. Yeah, I still, again, with mock drafts, part of it is what are you hearing in the league? But part of it is player evaluation too.

I think at some point you have to stop believing all the rumors you hear and just look at the players and ask yourself, doesn't make sense. And I just see at Adam Fantilli, I see a 6-2 center who can skate, who has incredible offensive abilities. You know, we let college hockey in scoring this season. I won the Hobie Baker, and he's this big, highly competitive, super physical centerman. I get Leo Carlson is smarter. I would give him a higher hockey sense grade. Pretty much every NHL scout I talk to would agree with that.

Maybe he has a little bit more pure offense in his game. I get that argument. I just, again, I just look at the two players and it doesn't make sense to me to not take that player. And I think especially when you factor in, I think we've made this point on a previous podcast, that Pat Verbeek is the GM who's going to make that decision. You know, the way that Pat Verbeek was as a player and certainly the way a lot of the teams that he's been a part of with Steve Eiserman, they do seem to emphasize that compete trait that Fantilli has over Carlson.

Not to say that Carlson doesn't compete, but that is one of Fantili's true strengths. Right. I think given that I would say Carlson, I don't think he was miles better than Fantalia at the world, but I would say if you had to ask me who was the better of the two players there, I would have said Carlson, although Fantilli's goal there in the semi-final may have swayed that opinion a little bit,

just given the moment and the caliber of play that was. But if you looked at the body of the work, I always said Carl's an over the tournament was a little bit more impressive. But I don't think it was enough to outweigh everything I've seen of them over the last two years. Yeah. That I still think of doing a mock draft. For me, I still think Fantilli will be the second pick. When we did that, we had Scott on last time to discuss you and his kind of joint mock draft, I did hear from the Detroit fans about skipping over all the analysis of the potential Detroit selections.

I think there's a natural lane to do it here because in this, you know, they've got nine and 17. You've got him coming away with Delabor, Dvorsohn and Zach Benson. Benson, we've talked the whole year about kind of how tough it's going to be to figure out where is this guy going to go? Because there is obvious, you know, a lot to like there. But he is this smaller skilled winger, and we tend to see that player drop in the draft. Here he gets a 17. What kind of went into trying to figure out a landing spot for Zach Benson? Well, it's a couple of things.

He said, smaller winger, not an elite skater. obviously has a ton of skill, hockey sense, competitiveness, but you start looking at the organizations where he might land in. And I start looking at, you know, will Washington take him at eight maybe? Obviously, Mitchcoff is, between him and Mitchcove, I think they're going Mitchcov. At nine is Detroit. You know, I think he fits a lot of what they want to do, but I just feel like they would want to get a guy that's a little bit bigger.

Now you're looking for ideally a center or a defense. Vinceman at 10 with Vancouver. Can they really go with another wing? You know, they just, you know, Vasily put Coles and John Lickaer and Mackey, Neal's Hoglander. Eventually, I think you need to get either some size or a center or D prospect.

They don't get center or D in this mock trip. They get Matthew Wood. Arizona, I think, would like to get bigger. Buffalo have drafted a lot of small forwards recently in the draft. St. Louis has drafted a lot of wingers lately in the draft. I think Pittsburgh

a potential landing spot there. That would make a lot of sense to give, you know, Malkin or Crosby a potential scoring option. But, you know, I give him Gabe Perrault, who I think between Perrault and Benson, I think Perrault would go higher in the draft. The draft was held today. So those are all the variables that I'm kind of bouncing when trying to figure out a landing spot for this player.

And I could see with two first, Detroit being an organization is that they willing to take that kind of swing. Yeah, I agree with you. I think at nine, maybe it's a little rich for their blood, especially when you look at kind of what else is there. I think in this one, Dvorski, I do think, is another one who fits what they want to do, Tom Wlander at 10. But at 17, you start to get there and you see the offensive tools plus the compete. There's a lot there, certainly, for the Red Wings to like.

The one that, you know, the three guys on the board there, one after another, really four, Barlow Moore-Yager, all, I think, could be kind of interesting questions for them. So that should be an interesting. It's a really interesting draft for Detroit just because of the two picks in the top 17. the landing spots of Boone and Simashev could dictate things there too. The more I kind of ask around the league, I think they still, I think both of them will be fairly high picks. I'm not sure if they both go top 15 or top 20, but I think there's a lot of interest in both for those players. But if they go low, I have them both going in the top 15

in this mock, I think in the last mock I had them going a little bit lower. Those two landing spots can change things significantly. Okay, we're going to take a quick break right here, hear from our sponsors, and we're going to continue with this conversation in just one second. All right, let's dive back into this Corrid. I want to talk to you about the defensemen in this class, because you talk about Tom Mlander and his rise. We've talked about that on this show. He gets up to 10 in this mock.

But by the end of the first round, it's still only, I believe, seven defensemen that you have going in round one, and a good chunk of those are right there at the very back half, back, not even back half, back five to 10 picks, which is still a little bit striking. We talk about the first round of a draft and how valuable. defensemen are to NHL teams. Yeah, I agree. I think figuring out the defensemen slotting for this year's class is a challenging thing.

And just because, again, the position is so highly valued. And it's why I still have four defensemen going, I believe, in the top 15 to 16 picks of this draft. Two in the top 10 and David Reidenbacher and Tom Rolander, two more in the early teens in Demetri Simashev and Axel, Sandin Pelica. Then after that, there is a gap. And it makes me wonder, now that you point that out,

I think there's about 11, 12 spot gap between Sandin Pelica and the next defenseman that gets picked, which I believe was Etienne Moran. You know, I know there are big fans in the league of Oliver Bunk. I know there are big fans in the league of Moran. I know there are big fans in the league of a couple other defensemen, be it Tanner Mollandik or Maxim Sturback. And so I look at that and I wonder maybe I should be elevating those players a little bit. Kind of what you said, we've known for a while this is a forward heavy draft and guys have emerged during the course of the season.

And I think still that it is kind of forward heavy, there will be guys that will just be elevated for that reason as not taking a guy who is less talented than the other options. but if you value really premium on the defense position, and there's only a few left and there's five, six other wingers, especially if you're a team with multiple picks, you know, if you have six, seven forwards, you're really excited about and you have another pick 10, 15 picks later, and there's only one defenseman left you're really excited about. I think teams will opt for that defenseman.

Yeah, it is interesting, though, because when you look at some of the teams that have multiple picks here, like in your mock, you know, Nashville, St. Louis at 24, 25, Those teams are both on their second pick of the draft, and in your mock, they both went D with their first pick. So you can easily see how they end up in this mock. I think it's David Edstrom and Quentin Musty to those spots. That plays a factor here, too. I mean, certainly you can see teams take to a defenseman, but it makes you kind of understand, especially if the talent leans for the forward, you probably feel better about making that pick.

Yeah, I think for those organizations like Nashville, like St. Louis, like Arizona, who don't really have that defense prospect in their organization. I think if you're looking at this draft, where their picks are, you're probably thinking yourself, like we should ideally be leaving this draft with a defenseman we're excited about. It doesn't mean it's going to happen. The board may not play out that way, but you have several high picks. There are players there that merit the pick on talent. And you are hoping, I think as a fan, that you can get one of those guys. Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, when you look at kind of that grouping, I think, Bonk is kind of one of the guys who, you know, coming out of London, 6-1, has put up a little bit of offense, moves well. He could be a guy that I think I could see going maybe closer to 20. Yeah, I think he's actually closer to 6-2. And I think that's you, people look at all those tools that that is the one guy who, like, I've mocked him now as low as 29, as high as 18. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle there where he actually goes. But I do think there are people in the league who like this player a lot, and I do think he will be a first-round pick. Give me the selling point for Moran because I don't know that,

I think this was the first time I'd really seen him in a first round for you. I mean, an exceptional offense this season in the queue. I think if you're a good prospect, you're expected to produce good offense in the queue, but he is a defenseman and, you know, giant numbers, both in the regular season, especially in the playoffs,

where something ridiculous, like a point in a half per day or something for a defenseman in the playoffs and a ton of goals this season as well. You know, really good skill, hockey sense. You know, excellent shot. One of the better shots in the draft. especially for a defenseman, might be the best shot for any defenseman in the draft.

Skating is fine, I think. It's not a major selling point, especially as a 6-0 guy. It looks a little awkward at times, but other times it looks powerful and can be evasive. So I think his big selling point is that he can provide you a lot of offense, but he may give back a little bit defensively. And then Mollendick, to your point,

I mean, he is not the biggest guy, but I know you've got plus grades on the, the skating and the compete. And at the end of the day, in the modern NHL, that will take you a long way. For a guy who's not tiny, tiny, he's just not maybe just a hair under six foot. Yeah, and in the mock, I give him to Montreal there at 32. And I wrote in the mock that I kind of analogize Mollendick as a player to a young defensive than Montreal put a few years ago in Alexander Romanov.

And he only went like a couple of spots later, and he was Russian. So I think this is a reasonable range to kind of expect Mollendix. just a goal right around the 30 spot. Maybe it's right at the end of day one, beginning of day two. Exceptional skating defenseman who competes well, has some secondary offense, but he's not a huge offensive guy, and he's not that big either. But he's an option there.

I think Maxim Sturback is an option there. I think Lucas Dragasevich is an option as a late one. But I don't know how many of these defensemen are extremely exciting guys that you could say are going to be comfortable first round picks. Yeah, I have to say if there were two names, who I maybe expected to see in the first round here that I ultimately did not. It would be Dragasevic and then Mikhail Gulliyev. And I wonder, I mean, we know that there are questions with Dragocevik's kind of overall game,

but when you look at the offense that he put up, do you really think teams are going to be able to let him get out of day one? I think it's people are on the bubble with him just because of the defending issues and he guess he wasn't that great. Like I don't think he, his start of his U.A. He was poor and then by the end he was playing better, but I don't think he had a great tournament there, a convincing tournament there.

Moran didn't either, mind you, but he only played the two games. But I think he is definitely an option. That's a late one. I don't think that's unreasonable. And in terms of Gulyayev, he's a very difficult player to project because there are some people in the league

who are big fans of this player, and there are some who are like, yeah, 5-10, good skating, good skill defensemen, Russian, you know, how many 5-10 guys really play in the league in a significant role. Is he dynamic enough to be that next one? Or is he just kind of like one of those diamond dozen type of players?

And I think given the fact that he is still in the KHL as well, I think those are all risk factors that if I was a betting man, I don't think he will be a first round pick, just from what I've heard about him all season. But I wouldn't be shocked. I do think there is maybe a minority opinion of him in the league who believe he could be that next great small. offensive defenseman. Well, it was good stuff on the mock. I know it probably will not be your last,

but plenty of interesting nuggets in there. I would highly encourage people to check that out. Also, though, I have to go back to what I said at the top of the show. The new formatting for the overall kind of draft board here is really cool, sortable. For me, on mobile, extremely user-friendly. But, Corey, I know you're probably most eager to talk about the rankings themselves more so than the formatting. So I'll let you do that here. You mentioned earlier, you got the two non-Michkov, big Russians, the locomotive guys, De Niel Bout and Dmitri Simashev, both of those guys end up in your final top-top 10 that is in the top of the lineup tier. And I think as much as we talked about last week, Mitchcov being the story of the draft, these guys may be like the story that's not getting

enough attention of the draft, because if that is the talent level, they could really shake up some maybe projections on draft day. I tend to agree. And this is not universal opinions around the league, but most hockey people I talk to agree. If they were playing in the CHL, they are no doubt top 12 guys. Could be, you know, in the case of boot,

you hear no doubt top eight, maybe someone even say up to like five, essentially in terms of pure talent. Those opinions, you know, can vary. But I think most people in the league think these are premium talents. and they're on standard KHL contracts. This is not Mitchcoff. This is the standard two-year contract.

There's two more years after the draft. Most KHL players are signed through the Rage 19 season on their first contracts. So I think, yeah, exactly where they land is becoming difficult to project. The common thought is teams with multiple picks tend to be the organizations that target these kind of players. You saw that last year with Daniel Yorov, that. it was it was Minnesota who had Liam Ogren in the same draft in round one

targeted year of but it's not a universal rule Ivan Mirza Chanko goes to Washington they did not have multiple picks but I think they have a lot of comfort drafting Russians they sign him shortly thereafter and I think that's kind of the same thing with Michkov I think with Mitchkov you don't I don't think those rules really apply I think

teams with one pick can swallow that just because of the caliber of talent he is but you look at boot and you look at the teams of multiple picks I think of St. Bud and Simechyev, that is. I think of Detroit. I think of St. Louis. I think of Arizona, Nashville. I think those are all organizations that could reasonably take that shot. I think, you know, you mentioned the contract length difference. And it's not, it's certainly not uncomplicated just because of the war. But especially when you start getting into eight, nine,

10, 11, 12, are you not talking about a two-year wait for most of these guys that you're taking it? Maybe you're getting Delaware Dvorovsky. Maybe Nate Danielson could be a little quicker. He's an older player. But you are kind of thinking potentially a two-year weight anyway for these guys. I agree. But I think one of the variables is the fact that these teams haven't seen them live this year. The interview process isn't as thorough as we'd be in previous years.

There is still a risk factor in getting them signed. So I think at that point in the draft, you know, top 10, I think I find it the argument of if it's close to take the other guy. Like is Samuel, I have bootrated ahead of Samuel Hans. Is he that much better than Samuel Hansik, though? I would say no. So I'm fine with somebody looking at him and saying, yeah, okay, we'll take Hansik. But then you get to a certain point in the draft where you're like, you know, is he better than Colby Barlow?

And I'm like, yeah, in my opinion, by a notable margin. Is he better than Cal Richie? I'm like, yes, by a rather significant margin. I just don't think there's anything Richie does better than him at hockey. And, you know, there's. And so I think at that point in the draft, and that could happen in the early teens. and it could happen closer to the mid-teens, I think at some point that margin is going to become so wide

between those two players. The difference between, in my opinion, like, Dmitri Simashev and, like, Oliver Bonk is gigantic. Like, you know, this is a 6-2 mobile puck-moving defenseman versus a 6-4 mobile puck-moving defenseman with, like, some physicality and some edge in his game. Like, there's no, like, it's such a wide gap there. So I think at some point, teams will be pressed

to take the, these guys, and I think it could happen fairly early on on day one. The other interesting thing about those two guys, Corey, is in your rankings, you have them at 9 and 10 at the end of that top of the lineup tier. That is ahead of where Ryan Leonard is in your rankings. And I think at least in most of the mocks that have come out, including, I believe, your own mock. Certainly, I think in Mach 2.0 that I just looked at, Leonard is much higher than that.

How do you kind of come to Leonard at 11? And what's your thought process there? Well, the mock is based on where I think they're going to go. and in discussions with people around the league, I think Leonard is extremely well thought of, and I think he's going to be a very early pick on day one. I think, you know, he has a very good chance, not a lot, but a very good chance to go in the top 10.

He's got a ton of skill. He skates well. One of the most competitive players in the draft. He has a really good shot, scored 50 goals for the program this season. He's a great player. I look at him, and I still have some, I have minor reservations in his particular,

rejection. You know, he is supposed to be like this super physical competitive player, but he is a slightly below average size for a player in the NHL. And, you know, especially for a guy who would play that kind of play style. I think his hockey sense is good, but I don't think it's a major selling point. I do have some minor questions on, you know, how the office would translate. And it's no surprise on that extremely loaded top US line with Will Smith and Gay Perot, who all scored a bunch this year. His numbers are, frankly, far below the other two despite all the opportunities on the top line of top power play. That is a little concerning to me. And so I think he's a really good hockey player. I just, I never got the, okay, he's a, I never got the sense watching this year that I could distinguish him as like this truly premium prospect, the guy who's going to have like a major, major impact in an NHL lineup. But he's on the precipice.

He's the next guy listed at the top of the next grouping. so I can see the argument to elevate him for sure. It is an interesting conversation because when we talk about him as this power forward, he is certainly that at this level. But when he is going against those bigger, faster, stronger defensemen, maybe that is where you get a little bit of worry at, you know, is it 5.11.5 or 6 foot or whatever it is. It is harder to play that game when you're not 6-2, 6.3.

Yeah, and that's one where we're going to talk about this in the next segment. But, you know, when trying to think of a player comfortable for him, really struggled. Like I ended up on Arturi-Lakinen. You know, I thought of, okay, maybe he's Jason Zucker. You know, maybe he is some, there's some analogies, maybe to Seth Jarvis a little bit. But, like, it's, there isn't a whole lot of, there aren't a whole lot of guys in the league who look like that, who played that style at that size, but also play like 17, 18, 19 minutes a night. What about Tyler Bertuzzi?

I mean, that is, that is possible. And he's also a guy who, frankly, in his draft year, was not. knock for his offense. He actually, I mean, he barely scored in the OHL in his drafts. And he had injury troubles too, yep. Yeah. Yeah. So, but so that is, that is a reasonable comp there as well. I think, you know, like I said, there are those guys who exist in the league and he's a very good player. Would you call Tyler Pertuzzi a premium player in an NHL lineup? Or is he, he's probably on the precipice, right? I think, yeah, he's like a top six, but that is the tier that you have him in here. It's not a guaranteed top line thing.

So I think that's a fair argument. I just think like, you know, at first when we were talking about kind of the power forward element, it brought me back to, I think, the conversation we had in the wake of the Tyler Boucher thing about, can he be that guy in the NHL? But the obvious difference being, I think Leonard's offense is on a different level than what Tyler Boucher's was. Yes, I agree. But I think the size is actually quite similar as well as their skating ability. But, yeah, I think Leonard's pure skill and goal scoring touches.

superior. Yeah, I agree. All right. So that's an interesting one. The other one I want to talk about is Matthew Wood. And really, this is probably the start of a conversation I want to have out of the World U-18 tournament. I know Wood has been on the overall radar all year. I remember him being, I think, not too far off this range in the preseason even. But I felt like he maybe got a little lost in the middle of the year in terms of the conversation. But coming out of this U-18 tournament, he's solidified, right, not just a couple spots behind Leonard here at number 14. I want to know what a wood did to kind of solidify that for you? I mean, I thought he was quite poor at the Hulinka Gretzky in the summer,

so that didn't, I left a lasting impression on me and several others for quite some time. Even when you saw him at Yukon, it's tough. He's a true 17-year-old in college hockey. It's a big level going to the hockey east as a 17-year-old. But, you know, you saw the offense. He actually led his college team in scoring. But not an amazing skater. That's always been known.

And I think the big issue with him with watching a college has like, did he compete hard enough? He definitely didn't at the whole ink guy. I thought he, you know, he mailed it in, frankly, in that tournament. And then you kind of watch him at Yukon, and, you know, it's a little bit of perimeter stuff. And, you know, he's not, you know, his efforts just okay at best some nights. So you're a little concerned about that with the skating. And that's why I kind of had him lower all the year. Then I saw him at the U18s, and frankly towards the end of the year with Yukon as well. And I, I don't think the effort is great. But I thought it was at least better, you know, tolerable. Like, you know, he's able to win

some pucks back. He at least noticed him consistently throughout the game. I don't think the compete as an asset in his game, but there was portions of the season where I thought it was a liability. I upgraded that from a liability to, you know, somewhere in the middle. And with what I saw, you know, frankly with his first, other than in the summer, his first experience during the actual season against junior age players, as opposed to college age players. And that sold me a little bit better on him. I think we could ask probably a follow-up there on Tom Mollander and David Edstrom. We know they were two of the biggest risers out of the world U-18s.

But I think the question, you probably ask us about all three guys. Like, is there any over-correction to this? Because both of those guys are in your top 20. All three of those guys actually in your top 20. We'll lander to 15. Obviously, you got a mocked at 10, so the league agrees. But is there any fear that this is an overreaction? I think with Wood, there's more track record.

I mean, he led the BCHL and scoring is a 16-year-old. led his college team scoring a 17-year-old. Then he has a strong U-18 world. Has the big frame, has the high-end skills. I think there's a lot there to like you. Again, the skating and compete, you can talk about that. But, I mean, he has a body of work in the top 20, top 15 pick. The other two, I think, are more interesting.

With Willander, I think that was steady progression throughout the season. He was just okay, I thought, in August at the Hulinka. Then November tournament, looks interesting. World Junior A Challenge, really positive reviews out of that tournament. February tournament, Five Nations. U-18s, he's good there. Strong play of Rogla towards the end of the year, helps lead them towards a championship.

Then you have that big tournament in April at the U-18. So I think with him, it was steady progression throughout the season that ended on a very high note. But you saw the tools and the play progressed. Like, yeah, I can buy the argument. Maybe the offense isn't real. I do get it. But I've been sold enough from watching him over the entire season

to think that it could be. be real. Edstrom is the interesting one because I admit I did not really think much of him before the U18 Worlds and it was watching him there. It's not about just watching with the U18 world. It's watching him there and this happens every once in a while. You know, I make the stakes and you watch a guy at a tournament or whatever and you're like, God damn, I did not see that before. And is it because this is a mirage or did I miss something before? And so you're going back now and watching his J20 shifts, I go back, especially watch his SHL shifts where I thought he actually looked quite good with Frilanda in the 10, 12 games he played in the SHL. You're seeing,

okay, I undergraded the skating. I didn't know his skill was this good. And now you're starting to say, okay, now he's 6'3 and he can skate. He has a little bit of skill and he competes hard. You're like, okay, these are a lot of pieces that are coming together that he showed consistently at the U18 world, but that I maybe did not give him credit for. for his play with Frulanda and at both at the J20, SHL level. I've gotten some pushback on this one in the league. There are people who think I have him too high,

but I have talked to people who think he is going to go right around that 20 spot as well. Well, it's funny because you mentioned the kind of like going back, and I remember earlier in the season when we would talk about Otto Stenberg, I want to say that you would be like, look, he's not even that he's not the leading scorer on the team that was of the age group. That was Noah Dover-Nilson. Wasn't Edstrom also ahead of Stenberg in scoring for that? team for flounder's j20 team yes yeah so that's one of those cases maybe where you see it in person

you see it at this big event and you go back and you you start to put other pieces together right like maybe maybe you didn't see these traits but it all starts to kind of make sense right yeah and and yeah I mean there's a reason he led that team in ice time at that tournament it's because he was frankly their best player I think at the February term actually he was the second leading player in ice time from centers felic Nielsen was actually their top center I think where Nielsen lands is actually a whole other interesting debate because I don't think, I think he would have had a really big U18 worlds if he had gone there too, playing with Rogel as well on, you know, with Willander.

But, uh, but I think Edstrom, like that. I think Edstrom, for me, it wasn't just one tournament that convinced me, although it helped a lot. It was the extra work I did on top of watching him there that I am finding things that I might have missed before that persuaded me primarily. Good stuff. We're going to take a quick break right there, and we're going to come back. I want to talk about some of the player comparables here. All right, we are back.

And, Corey, among the many elements of the rankings are something you started to do in a year or two ago, where you add a player comparable for most of the top 30 to 40 or so players. And I want to ask you about a few of them, especially on the top guys. And right at the top of the board, we got Connor Bedard. You've got them compared to David Pasternak. It was funny. I don't know if it was a commenter. I think it might have been one of the comments on the stories said, like,

if he's Pashternak, is that a disappointment considering what the hype was? I thought that was a really interesting, I mean, David Pastornak was high on my MVP ballot this year, but I wanted to kind of know a little bit more about how you come to these comparables. And then I kind of want your answer to that question. Yeah, I would probably push back on a guy. Would he have 60 goals, 100-something points this year? Yeah, no, I think if Bedard does that even one season, I think you're thrilled to have that kind of offensive talent. The most difficult comes for me, both this year and last year, happen at the very,

very top. Because at the very, very top, you're projecting these guys, you know, understandably to be among the better players in the league. You're projecting an impact talent. And there are so few impact talents in the league that it's kind of hard to find the perfect comparable. You know, if you think Bedard is a center, you think of the small premium centers in the league. And league. It's like, okay, is he Braden Point? No. He has far more skill than Braden Point does. He has a much better shot than Braden Point does. You know, Braden Point probably has a little bit more competitive than this guy does. Doesn't mean that Braden Point isn't skilled and it doesn't score. It doesn't mean that Badard isn't competitive, but those player styles just don't mesh

at all. It's like, okay, is he Sidney Crosby? It's like, no, not really. Like, Sidney Crosby has out of this world hockey sense and vision. I don't, and, you know, such a lot of, you know, such he's such a monster competitively. I just don't see that analogy there between the two, especially with the goal scoring element, even though Sydney has a great shot. The player comps don't mesh there. Jack Hughes is this unbelievable skater.

And as there's not what Badard is. He's a good skater, but he's not an unbelievable skater. He's not one of the top five, ten skaters in the league like Jack Hughes is. So you run out of the center comps already, not that many centers who look like him. And now, I'm talking about wings, because there's a chance, Bada is a wing in the NHL. I think Chicago, given their absolute lack of center depth,

have to try him at center. But when they're ready to contend in maybe four or five years, is he for sure going to be playing the middle for them? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. We'll see how it goes. And Pasternak isn't a perfect comp for him either. I mean, he's 60, 6.1,

but Dard's under 5 foot 10. That's a pretty significant size gap. But the reason why I chose Pasternak is, you know, for me, the two big elements of Badaar's game is game-breaking skill and game-breaking shot. And I think with Pasternak, he has both of those elements in his game while being a good, not-amazing skater. And the compete isn't the same between the two of them. I think Badares competes harder. I think the size element isn't the same. But, and that's what I say it's so hard to find a couple for the very best guys.

but I thought in terms of those major, those major assets, the way they score, I thought that was the line to draw there. I think for me, the guy always comes up as Patrick Kane, but it is a good point. With Kane, it might be more the skill and the playmaking, more so than the skill in the pure shot, which would tend to turn Pasturek. Yeah, I agree with that.

And that's why I didn't choose Kane either, is because even though they're similar frames, good, not elite skaters, you know, Kane is an elite elite passer, and I don't think, Dark is a good passer, really good passer actually, but I don't think he is Patrick Kane level in that kind of creativity as a playmaker. And it's the same reason why I didn't choose Mitchkov's comp as Kane either, because I think there's a temptation to do that there too.

But one guy is an absolute pure goal scorer, and the other guy is a pure passer. Do you have a policy against reusing comps? because I actually feel like you could have used. And it's funny because I don't think Mitchkoff and Bedard are one for one. But I think you could have used Pasternak for Mitchkhov even, although Pasternak a little more size. I think you could have. Yes, it was, it was, I see the argument either way.

I really struggled finding on Mishkov comp. And I think, frankly, this is part of the debate around him in league is it's not just the contract. It's not just the fact that he's, you know, in Russia. and there's the war going on. It's that this is this, you know, it's hard to think of like a recent star in the NHL in my lifetime who looks like him, who is, you know, barely 5 foot 10, doesn't have amazing foot speed. It's not like this warrior in terms of his compete level, but it's just going to blow you away with his offensive skill and goal scoring ability. Like that guy doesn't really exist in the league that I can think of.

You know, I chose Kuchera for him. I didn't love it because I do think Kutrov does have a little bit more of a passing instinct in his game, although you see the way he runs the top power play for Tampa. He has a really good shot too. And the reason I chose Kuturov is I just think because of the frames, the good, not amazing skating, even though I think Kutrov's a better skater. He's a much better competitor than Mishkov is. But I think what really drove it for me is I just think both of their hockey senses are just so special.

and Kutrov when he was younger was a little bit more of a goal score so that's why I couldn't have those dots there a little bit it wasn't just the Russian variable there but I would say Mitchkoff frankly has more skill than Kuturov at least if he did it at the same age so it's

the question with Mitch Koff is just going to be will it translate if he can't play can he play an NHL pace can he handle NHL physicality will it translate I had a friend of mine make an analogy to, you know, because there's no comp to him in the NHL.

One comp I thought of that made actually a lot of sense is if you're a football fan and was following the NFL draft, you know, there was no comp for Bryce Young in the NFL, right? Like there was no guy who looked like that. He's, you know, an average athlete at best for the NFL, you know, really undersized, not an elite runner, et cetera, et cetera, but he had off the chart intelligence. You know, that's kind of like a similar situation here where, you know, there's a lot of risk on the player comp, but sorry that the projection,

a lot of risk on the project at the player comp, but, and, but you just are so blown away by the talents and the intelligence. So yeah, I debated Kane, I debated Kuturov. Did not think of Pashtenak there, but that's actually not a unreasonable one to use.

Well, so my other question, you bring up the compete, Kuturov's draft year predates me paying attention. But was his compete always, like, an asset for him, or was there ever a period where you could kind of draw a line there? Could Mitchkov grow into this, basically, is what I'm asking.

I don't remember it being like the super elite trait, but I remember it being good. I think the issue was just that he was small, good, not great skater. Back then, I think Tampa really benefited in a couple of years span. It's like you kind of saw it in 2010 when Tarasenko 116, probably the closest analogy I remember going to find it, the Mitchcock situation. Yeah. Because he was considered a consensus top five player on talent at the time. He goes 16 and Kuznettov win in the 20s.

At that time, the KHL scare was really prominent. The league had just been founded from the Russian, you know, transitioning over from Russian Super League. You know, they had looked like a very powerful entity that were going to try and compute the NHL for talent. Teams got scared. Tarasenko falls, Kuznetzel falls. And then, Ossalewski, looked like this unbelievable goalie prospect, falls in 19. Kutrov, who I think most people knew, and I think if you even asked Tampa, they know the league knew this was a really good play. They didn't know he was going to be this good, but they knew he was a good player.

He falls in the second round. They take the gamble. It works out. I think they benefited from it just being this unique situation where there's always been hesitancy on taking Russians, but it was just really high there at the time. Yeah. So we talk all the time about kind of how at the very top of the draft, you know, there can be steep steps down from the first pick to the second pick to the third pick to the fourth pick, right? And I think you kind of see that in the comps here because we go from talking about the Posternox and the. the Kucharovs to a guy who we think could go as high as, you know, as potentially three,

but almost certainly top five here. Leo Carlson's comp is Tomas Hurtle, outstanding player, but I don't think we talk about hurdle in the same breath that we talk about Posternaka and Kutjurov. Right. And then Will Smith's is, uh, Afghani Kuznetsov. Right. You know, both are star centermen in the NHL, really important players on their teams, uh, be a different caliber of talents.

Hurdle's comp for Carlson is one I struggled with it because for a while there we thought my comps for him were wingers. I debated Miko Ranjanin. I debated Matt Boldy, very different caliber of players there. Not that Matt Boldy isn't a great player, but Miko Ranchenin is a superstar.

And there was a time I thought Carlson could reach that caliber. I lowered it a little bit. I think maybe Ranton was too aggressive. Maybe Hurdle doesn't fully capture the degree of offense Carlson has. I don't think it's, I could believe, out of whack hurdle. It's still, you know, sat around a point for game for several seasons in the NHL. He's a great player, and there is a positional aspect to it, too.

Yes, you know, Kucharov is an incredible offensive talent, definitely superior player to Hurtle, but Hurtle does play a very valuable position in the NHL. He is the first line center in the NHL. That is extremely valuable. But, yeah, I mean, like I said, I mean, we've rehashed several times the Mischoff debate. and the issues at hand and the talent we're talking about, I do think there's a talent drop off, a significant talent drop off. But if you can get, you know, like a guy you think could be Thomas Hurdle in a standard draft

is going like second or third overall typically. Yeah, and that is kind of the testament to what you always talk about with, you know, when people talk about above average draft, a great draft, we're mostly talking about the very top of it. And if you're getting a potential, I mean, I think Leo Carlson, you know, should probably go three or four. But if there's a world where he would get to five, you're thrilled at five. Montreal will be thrilled with that outcome. And I think, honestly, Columbus or San Jose would be, you know, it is kind of funny. If Carlson were to get to San Jose, they get a Thomas Hurtle replacement there. You think of like Carlson being five in like

2019, where Turcock goes five, or 2020, where Ken Johnson goes five. I mean, he's way ahead of those guys at the same age. Absolutely. Barrett Hayton, to Arizona, go goes five in 2018. Yeah. The other guy who might go five is David Reimacher. We think kind of cementing himself as the top D in the draft. And you have his comp as Brett Pesci. This I thought was very interesting because I remember a few years back in the early kind of should Toronto trade Nylander dramas. I think that the conversation was always, oh, Neelander for Pesci or whatever. And Pesci is certainly a top four D on one of the best teams in the NHL. I wonder, what the reception would be to the idea of Brett Pesci going top five in a draft?

That is a comment I've gotten from a few readers, even a few people in the league. It's like, do you really think break Pesci would be a top 10 pick in a draft? And I think the answer is yes. I think, you know, he plays major minutes on a top team. He's, you know, big, mobile, competitive player, not a premier offensive guy, but when they need to use him on a power play they can, he gets his points I just

you know that's what he looks like a really valuable player I think if he would have been you know I think he's almost he's almost up there with Carolina but if he would have hit the open market I think last season what is he getting paid 7 million yeah I think he's a $7 million plus player yeah so I don't know

that's that's top of the line up players in my opinion and I think that's you always kind of have to calibrate what the draft really is and in the draft there's usually two, three maximum this year a little bit more, but usually two or three absolute no doubters. Then you have eight, nine, ten guys.

You'll feel pretty good about it. We're going to have NHL careers. And then there's like 20 to 25 other guys who you think are going to have NHL careers, but there's this and that issue that could prevent it. To me, Ryan Bocker's in that second group. He is a guy who I think feel pretty confident he's going to have an NHL career. And that doesn't mean he's going to be a superstar. He could be.

but probably won't be. But if you get Brett Pesci out of a draft, that's a top-haired offenseman. It may not be a superstar. I know everybody wants superstars when they drafts in the top five, top ten. But that's not, frankly, realistic. The last time Montreal drafted this high, they got Gisbury Cockney-Emi.

Would they rather have Cockney-Ni-Emi or Brett Precii? Right. Yeah, you know, you can dream on getting the Zach Werensky, but if you gave someone the choice today between Brett Pesci and Ivan Proverov, they're taking Peschi. Yep, I agree with that too. Yeah. So that's interesting.

A couple other guys that we're talking mostly here about the top of the draft, but there was a couple interesting ones, more in your kind of late teens that I wanted to get to. A couple guys who, you know, I think maybe slightly similar conversations in Braden Yeager and Oliver Moore, I think maybe more certainty that Moore is going to stick at center long term. But in terms of guys on the smaller end, who's maybe big traits are there skating and their scoring, the comps here.

I thought we're pretty different. Yep. Travis Kineckney for Braden Yeager, and I think that speaks to the positional element and J.G. Peugeot for Oliver Moore. I wanted to hear how you kind of approach finding the comps. I know you would talk to Alex Newhawk in the past for more. Right.

And I had some pushback on that from our front readers who didn't want guys who really hadn't established themselves in his NHL as yet, which I think was perfectly reasonable. The issue with Moore, with Yeager, with Sand and Pelka 2 and trying to find a compromise. There's only so many 5-11 guys in the NHL, right?

So if it doesn't fit, you'll run out of them, essentially. And with more, I think he gets like a center is because even though I think Yeager skates quite well, Moore's a dimensional skater. And I think it gives him a better chance to stick down the middle in the NHL. Not everybody in the league frankly agrees. There are detractors who think this is just going to be

like a third line. energy winger. I don't think that's the consensus opinion, but those opinions do exist out there. I think a lot of people think he can stick down the middle. And for him, there are people in the league who think the acre to stick down the middle because he's got really good skating,

really good to compete, he's intelligent, he's played the middle, you know, for a long time, including he was the number one center for Canada at the Holinka. So I think there's a hope he can be a center in the NHL, but I think that's where I kind of split the difference there.

I just, I think because Moore's skating is so exceptional of that size, that he gives him the chance to be a John Gabriel Peugeot type of two-way center, presuming the compete looks as good in the pros as it has in junior. And ultimately, Peugeot, I think people will see third-line center, but this is a player who plays a big role on a team that went to consecutive conference finals. If you look at what he was traded for a couple years ago, that tells you what the league

thinks of him. Yeah, no, he's an excellent player. But, you know, do I think more for sure going to reach that count? over a player, I wouldn't say for sure. But there's always so many guys I can choose from who play that way. It's why I chose New Hook. I actually thought that the lines were pretty

well, well done there between the skating, the size, the compete, the good, not great offensive touches. But New Hook is, you know, still established those in an NHL player. He barely played for Colorado on the playoffs. So I didn't think that was a fair one to compare it to. Yeah.

Really good stuff. I would highly encourage everybody to go check out that new draft ranking and of course mock draft 2.0. But in the meantime, that is going to do it for us. Thanks for listening to this episode of The Athletic Hockey Show's prospect series. You can follow us on YouTube at YouTube.com

slash at the athletic hockey show. Right now, you can get a one-year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month when you visit the athletic.com slash hockey show. We'll talk to you soon.