The Athletic Hockey Show - NHL trade deadline: should the New Jersey Devils swing for Timo Meier?, top undrafted free agents, U18 Four Nations recap, listener questions, and more

Episode Date: February 24, 2023

Max and Corey are back with a brand new Prospect Series episode of The Athletic Hockey Show to discuss the 7 2023 NHL Draft first round picks already traded ahead of the March 3 deadline, what a “deep” draft class is, what bubble playoff teams like the Buffalo Sabres, Detroit Red Wings, and Ottawa Senators should do as the trade deadline approaches, how aggressive the New Jersey Devils should be in trying to acquire a player like Timo Meier, the top undrafted free agents on the market right now, the U18 Four Nations tournament, and a lot of listener questions in the mailbag to close things out. 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/hockeyshowTake advantage of MANSCAPED®’s best valued bundle and save 20% Off and Free Shipping with the code NHL23 at http://Manscaped.comTry Peloton risk-free with a 30-Day Home Trial, New Members only. Not available in remote locations. See additional terms at http://onepeloton.ca/home-trialGo to https://www.chime.com/nhlshow to sign up for a Chime Credit Builder Visa Credit Card today! Thanks to Chime for supporting the show.Get a FREE 1-year supply of immune-supporting Vitamin D AND 5 FREE travel packs with your first purchase at http://athleticgreens.com/NHL 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 Perman for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show's Prospect Series. We are at the time of year, Corey, the trade deadline, where we are liable to have this be outdated real quick. But as of this moment, as of this recording, it's already been a pretty eventful deadline, some big names moving around. And I think most interestingly, Not all in season, but there have been seven picks, first round picks, already traded for the 2023 NHL draft. This has been a much discussed NHL draft given the kind of players at the top of the draft.

And I wanted to know kind of your thoughts on that, seeing this much capital already moving around for this 2023 draft. I mean, it's really interesting. And obviously, we saw that just recently with the Ryan O'Reilly trade, Toronto moves its first round pick in the upcoming 2023 draft and you know you and I have

had many discussions about the upcoming draft class the depth of the draft the hype around the draft and whether the hype is justified or not but I do think it is a good draft class if you look at my most recent draft ranking

I'll have another one come up in a week or two and the tiers will look roughly similar with some minor tweaks. I think there are whatever, 15, 16 really good hockey players in this draft and roughly, I think, 35, 37 good prospects in this draft, which would be slightly above average from the historical norm. And the very top is well above average from the historical norm. So I do think this is a strong draft class. But I think it's an interesting discussion where you think about what is a deep draft. I think when some, not all, but some people, when,

whether in the media or fans or whatnot, call a draft deep. I sometimes get the impression they think that there's 20 extra good players than there is usually. Like it's going to be a 2003 draft class. It's going to be maybe even another 2015 draft class. But the reality is what an above average draft typically looks like is, you know, maybe there will be 33 to 35 good players in a normal draft. And in a deep draft, it's like 37 to 39. You know, and I also sometimes think it can be hard to conceptually grasp what deep looks like in a draft.

And I sometimes think there are certain biases that come into play with that. You and I, the other day, were having a discussion about past draft classes. And my rankings are by no means authoritative in any means or mean I'm right or not. but I had done a recent ranking of the 2019-2020 draft classes where I kind of tiered the players and projected them at various levels. And you thought, for sure, the 2019 draft was deeper than the 2020 draft, correct? Yes, yes, very much so. And when I did my rankings, I had more players graded as a middle of a lineup player or better with the 2020 draft than the 19th draft. I think it was like two or three more players, mind you.

and maybe a couple of higher grades in the next tier as well. But the difference was the 2019 draft had, you know, stars at the top. Jack Hughes, Trevor Zagris, Mark Seidard, Cawfield. Coffield. Yeah, I mean, like I said, I mean, even at Bowen Byron, too, like it's just, you know, the top of that draft is absolutely loaded. But then it's like, okay, but what does the next 20 players look like? there's still good players there.

But I think I kind of feel like a similar thing is happening with this draft class where because Connor Bedard is so good, because Adam Fantili is so good. And Leo Carlson and Montveh Michkov and maybe one or two other players look like such incredible prospects

that I think it kind of warps the discussion of this draft from. This is a loaded draft from top to bottom. There's going to be 45 good players that come from this draft instead of we've got some really special players at the top of this draft. And afterwards, you know, it looks interesting. And the implication of that as we talk about these picks that are getting moved, right,

is certainly no team that trades these picks expects to be picking where they are. And most, with the exception of possibly the Florida pick that Montreal owns and the Islanders pick that Vancouver owns, but there's some protections on that that would insulate them. most of these are beyond the range where we're talking about the depth of this class, right? That range is in terms of the high-end tier, which would maybe be five deep or four-deep, depending on your thoughts on a couple of players at the very top of the draft, and then the kind of the secondary, the really good tier, which might go to 15, 16 instead of 11, 12. That's fair?

Yeah, I feel like you're seeing teams right now. they are not willing to trade up a chance to get an infantile or Connor Bardard. Yes. But they are very willing to trade up an opportunity to draft Quest and Mustie or Gay-Perrault or Lucas Dragasevic or whoever. I think they look at those players they think. They're not too dissimilar from what other late first-round picks tend to look like. So this is a good lead.

And we had an unbelievable mailbag today, in my opinion. I thought it was the toughest time I've had win-witting down questions so far. Let's pull two of them up right here because they're on this topic. One is from Philip G. How valuable is pick 32 in this draft compared to previous drafts? This is right on what we're talking about here. And my answer, Corey, would be identical. Is that fair?

It would be for me, too. The only reason it would change is if one of those premium locomotive kids somehow made it their way to 32. The Russians. Yeah. If that's, that could change the calculus a little bit. And I think we saw that when McKenzie pulled the teams that the boot and Sima Shev were in that range. That would be really exciting if one of those two players gets there. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. But otherwise, I tend to agree with you that 32 this year looked similar to 32 last year

year and similar to 32 the year before that. Which leads into the other question from Joseph Noariak, who says, every year seems to have a deeper draft class than the one before it. What are some of the pitfalls of evaluating 24s at the same time you evaluate 23s? I think he is right on the nose here of what drives the, of what drives the. right? Because right now we're watching these 20, 23 kids, and we're watching at the same time, 24 kids, sometimes in the same games. And I remember last year at the Combine, we were talking in the Combine Hotel, and you were showing me what were at the time, my first looks at a couple

of different players, Zach Benson, the Winnipeg Ice, who was playing on a team with Conner Geeky and Matt Savoy, and Cam Allen, who at the time looked like kind of the, maybe the preeminent defenseman in that class. you're watching these guys at the same time, you know that they're a year younger, they're a year out, and look how good there. Zach Benson was, you know, not far off, Matt Savoy and Connor Geeky, if not at some points, a little even ahead of him. But then the draft year comes and things change. And I think Joseph's like right on the money here. This is what drives it, right? It's that sometimes we're watching these in real time and we go, wow, with one more year, how good are they going to be?

But sometimes that doesn't come. Sometimes they stay mostly where they're at. Right. And Benson and Allen will be two different cases. Benson has still a very strong prospect whereas Cam Allen, I'm like, he may not go top two rounds anymore if I had to bet. That's two very different cases. Benson, I still think, will be a strong first round draft pick and had just come up a four point game the other day. But you're right. And we're going into that draft, that 2022 draft, we were having discussions in the suburb before about the draft of, you know, Shane Wright and Matthew Savoy and Brad Lambert. and that changes quickly. It is really difficult to evaluate a draft a year out.

I say this all the time, and I'll say it again, that just so much changes in the period of a year. And then the year after from now, a lot's going to change. Somebody might have looked at you side-eyed if you would have said this time last year that Jimmy Snuggaruk is the second best forward on the program. And I'm not saying he is better than Cutter-Gocier, But there's a case.

There is a conversation right now about it. And there's a lot changes in the course of a year. And I think another issue is we lack the context a little bit. Like I will, in my lead up to the draft, like that's kind of what I was doing at the combine. I'll watch, I'll go watch the top underrated kids. I'll dig into them a little bit. I go to the 17 challenge to watch the kids there. You catch them at various other events throughout the year because you're watching somebody else.

but you lack the context of really seeing the entire age group and stacking guys up against each other when you've really dug into these players. And I watch, but it's a difference between watching them in a cursory look leading into the draft and doing what you're doing in their draft year where you're really digging into these players. You're asking a lot of hard questions. You're talking to a lot of people about them. You're trying to get to really know these players.

It's a different level of expertise. So yes, it probably leads a little bit to a, too much of a hype machine based on whatever accolades or statistics they get in their past season. It's going to happen next year. I'm sure people are going to, you know, rightfully start hyping certain prospects that are having great underage seasons, but we will see where we are this time next year. I mean, no, I can't, I did not talk to anybody, never mind the media.

I didn't talk to many scouts this time last year who were telling you how good David Reinhaker was. Right. And I think he's the odds-on favorite to be the first defenseman picked in the draft right now. Yeah, and that's kind of why I use the Benson and Allen, right, is because it can go either way. It can go, yeah, okay, Zach Benson, whether you thought he's top five then and still do now or you think he's more top 10 now. Like, he's pretty much delivered, but Allen, it goes the other way. And so, but when you see the performance, it's hard not to think all of them are going to keep that up, right?

Especially, you know, you even see these guys who come into the world juniors or are double underage. at the U-18s like an Aaron Kivihar-you and we'll see where it goes for him. I mean, but it's hard to not get excited and think every one of these guys is going to be what they are. Yeah, I mean, leading into the summer of his draft season, there was no reasonable arguments to suggest Brad Lambert was not going to be a first-round pick. This is a guy who as an underage player was one in Finland's best players at the world juniors. And he still did go in the first round, but he walked the line. and and I guess it just so much changes in the course.

Atu-ratu. Sure. Same deal, right? Yep. 100%. Awesome. Well, so I think that's a good context to keep in mind here as you talk about the 23 class and as you talk about the 24 class.

If your team gets, you know, the St. Louis Blues now have three first round picks. And it might seem like, oh, my God, three first round picks in this class, you know, I guess kind of similar to how the Bruins had it in that 2015 class, I guess. But I don't think they're going to be quite as early as those. But, you know, they're still likely by the time most of those picks are being made, it's going to have leveled off. I do think, though, there are some really interesting teams to talk about here in this deadline and what they're going to do. And none of these teams are ones that I think are going to be trading first round picks by any means. But they are teams that, you know, in recent years, have been looking to acquire them. And I'm talking about the

three Atlantic Rebuilders, Buffalo, Detroit, and Ottawa, all of whom right now are within shouting range, Corey, are the playoffs. The Red Wings and Sabres, especially, by math, like, have really good paths to the playoffs. Now, whether you think they'll get there, whether you think they're overachieving or not, that's its own question. And I guess it kind of fuels my question, which is, what would you do here as these teams? Are you still, if you're the Red Wings, are you looking to potentially trade your pending UFAs like Tyler Bertusie, who, I don't know if he gets a first, but given what guys have gone for, I don't think it's crazy to ask for that. Or are you saying, hey, look, we've been through the ringer here. Let's chase this.

Let's try to make this playoffs. When I've talked to teams in this position, I get conflicting answers on what the best path is. Because I think these are hard decisions to make. I think these are hard decisions because you know deep down what the best thing for your long-term organization is. That is, you know, in a bubble, it's to trade the UFAs for the picks and the prospects. Because even if Buffalo or Detroit makes it in, the chances of them winning a Stanley Cup this year are extremely small. Buffalo's got a really strong offense. And like I could see a reality where if they get in, they could maybe get an upset in a round.

But they also let up a lot of goals too. So it would just be really hard for me to imagine them making a long, playoff rod. But when I've talked to people and management in these situations, especially when you are an organization like these three, and this isn't just you're on the bubble. This is organizations that have spent a long time rebuilding. I mean, Buffalo, Detroit, Ottawa, you know, they spent, they have, you know, had a lot of losing seasons. And they're trying to turn around. And in all three situations, especially in Ottawa and Buffalo, they have a lot of really good young players there. I mean, Detroit too also has really good young players. And what I often hear

is I don't want to develop a cultural losing with my organization. I don't want to look towards whether it's Rasmus Dalin or Tim Stutzel or Dylan Larkin or Mord Cider or whoever and say, well, all right, you guys gave it your best, back to losing this year. We'll try again next year. They want to try and make sure that these guys at least feel energized and have a part of a playoff. run and and feel like the organization is trying to win with them. So I don't know what the best move to make in this spot is. My lean is to stand pat if you are really in a playoff race. It's hard for me to justify trading away guys.

Again, I get the team building aspect of it. But if I was a manager, I have a really hard time looking at my leadership group. afterwards after I just trade away one of our best players and telling these guys to compete hard for the next 20 games. So this might be flawed thinking on my part. I agree with you. It's a hard sell to the room. I think standing pat would be one of the tougher ones for me to stomach as a GM because you still might not make it. You still don't know if you're kind of in a little bit of a mirage, right? The Redmings have won like nine out of 13. And it's totally possible that they still aren't going to make the playoffs. And if that happens and they lose guys for nothing, I

think I would still feel a little bit like, oh, I, I, uh, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I a, a, or a, or a light sell. Obviously, you're not going to make explosive trades that are going to tank your locker room, um, or tank your, your future. I think, sure, you got to do one, you got to, you got to either improve your chance enough that you can really feel good that you're making the playoffs to me, or, uh, or, or you got to kind of be disciplined to, to your process or whatever, but I feel like I'd have a hard time standing path. We're the Islanders a bubble team, like the year they traded for Ryan Smith, and they traded like a top, and they traded like a first round pick and like a good prospect who didn't pan out.

So it's not unreasonable to buy in that situation. I mean, you could argue the Islanders kind of did that again with Bo Horvett. I mean, the teams, I mean, they may or may not make the playoffs, right? But they made a big move right now. but I see the case both ways. It would be a really tough decision. It would. And, you know, maybe standing pat is better than I'm giving it credit for, but it's

going to be interesting to watch with those three teams. I just think when you light buy or you light sell, particularly when you light sell, like if you're trading whatever bubble guy for a third round pick, like that's, like, it doesn't mean anything, right? Like, you're not changing the direction of your organization at all. So. Well, then do a light buy and trade a third round pick for one of the ones. of those guys and make your locker room think like, oh, wow, they believe at us, you know?

Yeah, I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, too. I just don't think any of those redecisions really meaningful, meaningfully change anything. That's fair. And for both of those teams, I think we can agree. Like, the big pieces that are going to decide their long-term future are likely their current prospects or their current young players. Like, that is, we're at that point now. This is not, we're not talking about San Jose here at this point.

Sure. But, you know, has Lark? Can you see the playoff series yet? Yes, but in his first year, you know, he was really young. I think there's a good argument for that, right? And he's 26 years old. Rasmus Dowling hasn't played in the playoffs yet. Yep, right.

That's right. No, it's a good point. I mean, I think if you can, that's why I think if you're going to do something, it has to be to, or not sell, I should say, then you have to really start to go in on, okay, then this is what we're pushing for. It's not just let the chips fall, would they make. for me at least. One more Rebuilder that I want your take on Corey is the Devils.

Obviously a different spot than those three Atlantic teams we just mentioned. But we think they'll buy. How aggressive would you be here? Are you going full out for Timom Meyer yet? Or are you still being a little cautious? I think they are on that precipice of trying to be really aggressive. And I think it's just because, one, they are a very good team. And I think if you look among the top contenders,

I think they have the most prospect capital to play with, right? in terms of the pieces that they can move around. They obviously were just recently a rebuilding team. They've had a lot of high draft picks. And there are parts here that they can use in a trade. I know Alexander Holtz recently left an American League game recently. We'll see what the status of that injury is. But he would be a big piece if they decided to put him up.

They have other first round picks in the organization, whether it's Shakir Makamah Doolin, whether it's Nolan Foote. They have other high picks, whether it's Chavez-Casey or other recent high picks that they can use. Nikita Hucktuk, Kevin Paul, there's Akira Shmi, Nikodaz. There's a lot of pieces here that they can use as part of a trade, to whether it is for Timom Meyer or any other piece that may that isn't Timom Meyer. All right, Corey, let's go now to some of the free agents.

You had an article this week about kind of the top, as you do every year, top college free agents, top European free agents. my opinion reading this maybe a little bit of a lighter crop than I think we're used to seeing. Is that a fair take? Is that how NHL teams view this? Not as maybe impactful. They're never as impactful as I think fans want them to be. But even just skimming this a little bit, doesn't seem like there's real needle movers at the very top of this yet.

Right. Usually not every year, but one every two years, one every three years. There's one or two guys who everybody is chasing. everybody is really excited about that, like, okay, these are the, these are real players. They will make a difference your organization. Last year, that was Andreu Kuzmenko, for example. Ilya was a couple of years ago who went to Toronto. But this year, I would say, lacks that.

The top guy for me this year is Hardy Hamad Achtel, the former Nashville draft pick, who's been a big part of a top SHL team this year in Vacchio. Big defenseman could move the puck well, defense well, but not, you know, 64, 65, a non-an-an-amazing skater. And he's a guy, I kind of think realistically, I think he'll be a full-time player, but he's like a full-time third pair. Kind of think of like what Zach White Cloud is as a college radio signing for Vegas. He's not going to play big minutes, but I think this is a guy who can be a useful piece

for an NHL team. But, you know, arguably, and again, there's a couple other guys I mentioned there. I think Jake Livingstone is going to help a team. I think Sam Malinsky from Cornell can help a team. I think Victor O'Sman is a really solid goalie prospect. Reese Gabor from North Dakota as a solid prospect. But I think really the guys who are going to help teams just as much as a Hamonachtel, if not more, are the two guys who have been drafted and have made all indications that they are not going to sign with their current NHL teams,

which is Henry Thrun, who plays at Harvard, was drafted by Anaheim, Eric Portillo, the goaltender from Michigan, who was drafted by Buffalo. So with Portillo, I think, you know, the way that goaltending has been in demand in the league, he makes sense to start with him. Makes sense a little bit. Obviously, with Devin Levi being in the out organization, seems like maybe the path to opportunity there probably not as open as it would be. Do we have any sense yet for who's going to be in on him? Is it the kind of thing where anyone who can be is in on him, anybody emerging?

Yeah, I mean, you have, I think with Portillo, and I think this is part of because of Devin Levi and also Uku Pecaloukonanin is playing a lot of games right now with the Sabres as well. so there's competition there. So he's using his leverage. And now you guys are looking around the league and think, okay, where is there not as much competition? And you can think of a few organizations. You know, I look at Seattle as a team without great organizational depth in goalie. I look at Tampa, obviously they have Fasselowski, but it's, you know, they could use a guy to be a good number two for a long time.

Is Portillo better than Allnafell? I'm not sure, but, like I said, I mean it doesn't mean just because they don't have great, that doesn't mean they don't have any good players down there. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. you know, and as a free agent, you know, he gets to choose where he wants to go. But, you know, San Jose is one that I think of. I think of maybe, you know, the Kings is one that doesn't really have a top goalie project right now, especially given how Cal Peterson's development has gone.

So I think those are all options that are in the air. But we'll see ultimately what happens with him. And when I say that I think these are like the top prospects. I don't mean to say that I think Portillo or Thrunner are going to be like difference-making process. I just mean, I think these are NHL players. Are they going to be good NHL players? I think both of them have things to prove.

Portillo has the athletic toolkit. He's big and he moves well. I think he needs to be more consistent. And Thrun is a really intelligent defenseman, but his skating will be tested at the higher levels. All right, Corey, let's talk now about the recent U-18 Four Nations tournament in Finland. That tournament kind of was the story of the season for the U.S. team with the, the U.S. top line of Will Smith, predicted top 10 pick, Ryan Leonard, top half of the first round pick and Gabe Perrault, potential first round pick. Kind of steamroll in the competition from what it sounds like.

Yeah. And just looking up their stats right now, Perot, nine points in three games. Will Smith, eight points in three games with four goals. Ryan Leonard, seven points in three games with five goals. That top line was just outstanding in that tournament. Whenever they were on the ice, they were creating scoring chances. They were just a ton of energy, ton of skill, pace, everything you wanted to see from top players in an age group. I thought Will Smith in particular was just outstanding.

I haven't loved his play over the last month or two. I think we had kind of talked and hinted on this podcast. Is he for sure the top guy on this team? but he was really good in the November tournament, and then he was really good again in the February tournament, and I think he's kind of locked in that he is the top guy on this team, not to take anything away from someone like Ryan Leonard, who I thought was outstanding as well at this tournament,

and did everything you could want from him. He was playing hard, he played with pace, he was making high-end skill plays routinely, he was scoring, and this is a guy that is definitely, may not training up, He was already really highly rated, but he's a guy coming out of there. I know there was a lot of buzz among NHL people and think he's going to be, you know, for sure top half of the first round draft pick, could be top 12, could be top 10.

I think he's going to go really high in the draft. And then kind of on the other side of it is we had talked about maybe Smith was getting pressured, maybe by Leonard, but also made by Oliver Moore. And I don't think this was Oliver Moore's best week. I think skating is awesome. I think in my opinion the best skater in the draft, and he wasn't playing with as gifted players. He wasn't playing with Will Smith.

He wasn't playing with Ryan Leonard or Gay-Perrault. So he didn't have that kind of skill around him. But in November, and for most of the year, he frankly hasn't had that, and he's found ways to score. He's found ways to stood out. And I thought of this tournament he was just okay. He wasn't bad, but he didn't drive it. He wasn't creating a ton of offense.

I think he only had, I think, one or two points in the tournament. So it just wasn't the showing. I was hoping for him. And I left this tournament thinking there was a gap between him and Smith. So all year when we've talked about Oliver Moore, I think you've been quick to draw the parallel a little bit to Dylan Larkin in his draft year and playing on that second line behind this all-world top line. And what that maybe does for the perception of your production, I think,

especially. And you've teased kind of the idea of like what is Oliver Morgan look like when he potentially gets some call-ups to the U-18 team from the 17th. A couple of players on the USA 17 team, James Hagen's and Cole Iserman. Does it seem like that's coming here soon? And is that going to stick? I believe, well, we're recording this on Wednesday and a post on Friday. And I believe on Friday, Higgins and Iserman are going to be playing their first game of the season with the 18s, and I believe they will be on a line with Oliver Moore. So we will see now how this new look team performs, how Oliver Moore performs

surrounded by guys like Hagen and Eisenman, who are outstanding prospects on our full of offensive skill and creativity. And Eisenman is an elite goal scorer. So it will be really interesting to see how Oliver Moore plays for this next month and leading into the U18 World Championships. I kind of love the rhyme that becomes possible with the USA program just because it seems like there always seem to be kind of these archetypes. And I just wonder, you know, is Oliver Moore going to be the cutter goatee of this draft class? Not similar players, really at all.

But in terms of shooting up at the end of a season, you know, when you talk about Ryan Leonard, one of my thoughts was this is going to be the Jimmy Snuggor root of this draft class. And we look back and we say, oh, this guy who had all these, you know, multi-dimensional elements coming through. and he looks like one of the very best forwards in that class. So it's one of the fun things to think about the program. We look at the analogies you made the one between Moore and Larkin. You can almost make one between James Hagen and Cole Eisenman and when Jack Hughes and Cole Cawfield came up. Yeah, right. Yeah, exactly.

So lots of fun rhyme to see how that all plays out. I want to ask you, though, Corey, about Edward Shala at the same tournament. A guy who I think for most of the draft cycle has been in or around that top 10 conversation. I want to know how things are trending with him and what you thought of his tournament. I mean, I had that player rated around that range almost all season. I did it with some trepidation because his numbers in the Czech League weren't outstanding. You know, he had a good, not great, Hulian Skagretzky, but he said, I thought he was solid.

The World Juniors made it to stand out, but it was a big part of a team that went to the gold medal game. He has, you know, that amazing U-18s the year before. The Czech League is a good league, so you don't want to kill a guy from not performing at that level, and he's big and he can skate and he has all this skill. So it was kind of like maybe not making excuses for him, but trying, maybe not dinging him too much for not performing well all season because I thought there was still a really strong argument for him to be a top 10 pick. Then he goes to this tournament, which is with his own age group,

and he kind of bombs. He has one goal and no assists in the three games. It wasn't like he was getting. snake bitten. When I was watching him, he just wasn't really standing out. I didn't like his effort at all in this tournament. And that is scary. And we'll see how the last two months of the year and his U18 worlds in April go. But I would, as of now, I would have a hard time pushing this guy into a top 10 on a list right now, just because I think he needs to be far more consistent, even if the talent is of that range. How about for Sweden and Finland?

I think not a typical, you know, draft class, especially with the high end for this finish team. But in Sweden, I think a lot of the entry probably coming on the blue line. Any standouts from either of those teams at the tournament? Right. Yeah, no. I mean, Theo Linstein led their team in scoring. Sending Pelica was very good. I think sending Pelica will be a first round pick.

Linstein, not sure if he's going to be a first round pick, but I think if he has another tournament in April, like the one he had in February, he's got a chance. and he's a good prospect, mobile, intelligent defenseman. And Tom Wollander only had one point, but people like him because he skates really well and defends well, and he did those things at that tournament. I know Stenberg, not spectacular, but he's got a hat trick in the last game against Finland. No other points, I believe, other than that hat trick. And generally did a lot of things that you like, even though I don't think there's any dynamic about this 5-11 player, but he's a good all-around player.

I think those are kind of the guys Sandine Pelop will be really interesting to see where he goes because I look at this player and I don't think he is a special 5 foot 11 defenseman but he's definitely talented good skater very intelligent

and this is a draft class after when Reinebacker goes there's going to be a little bit gap between him and the next best defenseman for me and we'll see where Sandin Pelica lands

given that situation. And finally on Finland, I just, you know, they had a nice team, and they actually beat the United States, which was a major upset, although that was more of their goal. He played really well, and USA's goalies did not play really well. Caspar Hal Toonan had a nice tournament.

Jesse Kiskinan had a nice tournament, but neither of them really stood out. If anything, it was the underwagers on this team that really got you excited. They had a very young blue line, I think almost their entire blue line where I was underage, led by Aaron Kivaharayu, who will be a high pick in 2024. And I really like the play of Consta Heleneas

who was made a slightly undersized Ford but has a lot of really good positive elements in his game, skating, skill, compete, and I think he has a chance to be a high pick next year as well. I liked Kiskinan when they were here in Plymouth earlier this year. I forget what event that was. That was the November Five Nations. And I think, you know, he will be,

I don't think he's going to be a first round pick, but I think he could be somewhere between the second and the fourth round. Yeah, all right. So maybe not the high end, but you'll still see some Finns relevant here. I do think it's funny that there's a Hellenius that's a little bit underside. The Hellenius that I think of is Samuel, who's a monster. Right. And there's some late birthday Finns like Lenny Hamanahou, Artukarki.

There's some other guys that will be, you know, Finland's still going to produce high draft picks. But yeah, it's not an amazing Finnish group this year. All right. Let's take a break right there. We're going to come back, and we got a loaded mailbag that I'm really excited. All right, Corey, to the mailbag. First one's from Ben Adelberg, who wants to know if you use any advanced metrics in draft analysis that you think are, or do you think there are any that are effective for prospect evaluation?

It seems like there's more people, especially elite prospects, putting research towards statistical evaluation. I think this one's interesting because for me, you know, one of the advantages of advanced stats tends to be, you know, that it can tell you things that the points don't. But sometimes when it's prospects, points is very. really the only information you have to build advanced stats around. Yeah, and I think there's, I feel like that's hinting at that, but maybe like more of the other kind of things that you can like micro track, like zoning. Mitch Brown, yeah, he does a lot of that.

Yeah, that way, that kind of stuff passes. And when I think of the value of advanced metrics, at the NHL level, for me, the value has always been how it predicts things, right? that you learn something from this, that you can't learn from basic points, shots, time on ice metrics, and it can help predict the future because in these other cases, it predicted the future better than the basic stats did. That's always been the logic. And I'm not saying with advanced stats in the prospect world, whether it's some sort of adjusted points per game based on age or league or, you know, tracking their scoring chances, tracking their entries.

not saying that can't be valuable, but I would need to see evidence that it actually helps you draft better. And I think there's been research done with adjusted points that shows you that you can do those things. If you adjust for age, you adjust for lead quality, team quality. I've seen that research that shows that can help. And so it makes sense. I also don't know how much it really helps. Like, I mean, like you can build a metric or build a model that does that. I also feel like if you watch enough hockey and watch enough these leagues, you can kind of do it in your own head a little bit. Like, you know that whenever, 90 points in the OHL is impressive, you know, that five points in the SHL is decent, not amazing, not poor. Like, there's certain things you can

kind of like intuitively know. But so I see some value in it, but I, particularly for like maybe the newer age statistics that are being used for prospect of valuation, I tend to not put stock into that, just not because I don't think it's interesting, but because I don't know how much it's only going to help me, you know, do my job of predicting the future. All right, fair. Jay Primrose says, did Kyle Davidson botch the tank in Chicago? He just kept adding players last summer instead of sticking with known commodities like Carpenter, Borgstrom, et cetera.

Domi and Athens, C.U., 27 goals, 55 points of surpassed De Brinket, 19 goals, 48 points, for example. Who had that one on their bingo card at the start of the year? I don't know. Chicago's still pretty far down there. I don't know how he could have botched the tank. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, their team's still pretty bad. And we kind of hinted at this in the discussion, too, before about morale with the teams

that are on the bubble. I think maybe this isn't more about locker room morale. This is more about fan morale. And I think these are things that, like, ownership groups struggle with. and my conversation with management types is, like, you could only be so bad, right?

Like, you can't put an American League team out there and still expect to sell tickets to 40-something home games. And the fans know what's up. And towards the end of the year, you can start making some concerted efforts if it really becomes a battle towards the bottom and you seem to be in the mix to get fantili or badard

or whoever. But they see, they tore that thing down pretty good. good. Like, do you, do you, like, try and move Seth Jones or trying force Canaan tase out in the summer? Like, I don't know what one more they could have really done. No, I don't know either. I mean, I don't think bringing in, you know, you make the joke, but like they've combined for more goals than to bring it, but, you know, there are two players, right? I don't think you knew Athena's EU and, you know, Domi's got 17 goals. He's having a truly

fantastic season, but you might be able to trade him now. And then that gets you a new pick. I don't know why that's such a bad thing. You're the third bottom team. That's about as much as you can realistically go for. You can't control once you're in that bottom five, right? Right. I just think they added those guys because they had to have something that somewhat resembled an NHL roster, right?

And they were the right types because, you know, Max Domi might have a, you know, he's closing it on 50 points here, right? Like, you know, he's having a great year. Right. And there's been times this year where Chicago's been last in points percentage. too. So I don't know. I feel like they tanked well enough. You know, you just, you can't always predict exactly how the season is going to go. To me, tanking is to get you into the area you want to be. I'm sure that they, what, what the question asker is probably most worried about

is that, you know, he's not going to, they're going to drop out of the top four. Right. Exactly. Yeah. But they're, they're in the ballgame for Connor Bedard, Adam Fintilly, all that. Also, the numbers I think he had her off because I think he must have asked him early in the week because I think Domi had a big game but you know they're up even higher now Domi himself as 46 points that that's great Mike Roberson says how does Zach Benson compare to Jordan Dume and Seth Jarvis two guys who went in vastly different spots in the draft but I think it's an interesting question better skater right than Jarvis is that fair you're asking if Benson's a better skater than Jarvis yeah no I would say Jarvis is a better skater than Benson really I yeah I think

I think Jarvis is, I think Jarvis is one of his main assets as his skating. I think that's why he's able to make the NHL such a young age. I was able to play so well in pro hockey. The American League is such a young age. I think this is a, whatever, he's 5-10, 5-11, but he's a really good skater. He's really competitive. He has all that skill. I kind of think if you would take Zach Benson and add a degree of quickness and speed into his game,

he would become Seth Jarvis. I think that's-I think he has the quickness and speed. I don't, that's interesting. You're talking about Benson in this regard? Yeah, yeah. No, I would disagree. I think he's quick. I don't think he's fast.

I would challenge on that one. And I think that's a difference between me between him and Jarvis. And then kind of Dume is he has the skill of both of those players. Might even be the most, you know, in terms of skill plus hockey sense, might even have the highest level of the three of them. Maybe, maybe, maybe not. You can have some reasonable arguments. But he does not have either the skating of Jarvis or the compete of either of them.

I think both Benson and Jarvis's competes are major assets. And I don't think that's his game at all. And I think that's kind of how you create those separators there for me. But I think it's three very different levels of players. Like Jarvis is a foundational player for Carolina right now. But I think it's interesting to see how those similar size players will all score very well in junior, what those key differences are. in terms of their pro projections. Yeah, it must be a projection thing that, because I don't, when I watch Jarvis in the

NHL, I don't feel like he's like, you know, super dynamic speed or anything like that. I guess you could say Benz's not dynamic speed either, but I just feel like I see him separate more. Yeah, no, I would say Jarvis is an asset, just from what I've seen. All right, fair enough. Mack Blackwood's left heel. Where does the sharks want Mercer to start a deal from Meyer? Is that a realistic starting point or should the devil stay away?

That's quite the ask, in my opinion. It is, but I think that's going to take, like, it's not, maybe not Mercer exactly, but it's going to take that caliber of player. Like when I did my U-23 list, I had Mercer in the same tier as Matt Nyes. And I think if Meyer was going to Toronto, that was the ass was Matt Nyes. The difference in the situation is Mercer is on the team. He is a part of why they are good. Now, Meyer would be an upgrade on Mercer, but I think I can see the tension there a little bit,

because you get better, but you also get worse, both in the short and long term. Yeah, I just think, you know, with the system that you have, if you're the devils, you should be able to do it without giving up a guy who's already making a big roster impact for you in Mercer. I don't think like on value, I guess it's not unreasonable. But in terms of a guy who's a part of your team, a real part of your team right now. But given how good Meyer is, given his age, given that he has another year left, I can see if you're Mike Greer and the Sharks, how you're, You don't, you need one of those pieces coming back to be a premium asset.

You know, whether it is Mercer, whether it's NICE, whether it was, which obviously not going to be nigh now, but you know what I mean? Like it has to be some sort of premium piece. Like I don't know if you can get, you know, Holtz who can, not even the NHL, but is a good prospect. And that's the basis of your trade and really be excited about that. No, I agree with that. I, that is fair. I mean, we've seen, like, Pierre report the other day that Carolina has taken Nikitian out of all talks, and that's the guy who, if I was San Jose, I would want from the hurricanes, for example.

But that's also assuming, like, Jarvis is off the table, and certainly by all indications, he would be. So, I don't know. It just seems to me like that's a tough ass to take someone off your roster. I don't think the caliber of player is wrong, but it's just the off-the-roster thing, you know. Right. It almost would need to be, like, something else in that deal for me to, to me. make that work if you're the devils. Or if it is Mercer, it almost has to be like just Mercer essentially.

Yeah, right. It can't be Mercer plus a first plus whoever else. Yeah, I don't know. It's a tough deal to do. And I think this leads into a good one from Kevin N. How or why is it difficult for teams interested in the trade and sign players like Meyer? I hear some teams with a philosophy of not allowing their rentals to talk extensions while being shopped, see Vancouver, but seems to like to facilitate a deal that's inevitable and having

the dialogue would only help. Chuck leaving Calgary appeared to already know what his extension was going to be right after being moved to Florida. This is a topic I'm fascinated by Corey, because I think there is this idea that the return can only get better when you let the players representatives kind of shop him for you. And I understand the logic of that because the acquiring team maybe feels a little better giving up something real. But I do wonder if you, you think there's a drawback here because enough teams do hold this back from that. I got to think there's some reason that they're doing it. And in your theory, when I talked to you before about this, is you think it because it limits

their trading partners essentially. Well, imagine if you're a team trying to trade me and my agent goes around and talks and he talks to four teams. And I really like what one of those teams has to say. but they have by far the worst offer for me. And I start to really key in on it. I might not have a no trade clause, but I might have already kind of made up my mind,

like, okay, well, wherever I go, I'm definitely signing with the Rangers or whatever, the hurricanes, because I loved what they had to say, what their offer was going to be this offseason. At that point, I don't know, that kind of seems like it would kind of hamstring you because all of a sudden the other clubs know, oh, well, he's not really interested in signing an extension with me

because he knows what he can get somewhere else. That's my theory. I think it makes a lot of sense. It's not really what's going on, now, but it's kind of what's going on with Patrick Kane right? It's like he's not he does have a trade clause. Right, but it's not like a sign and trade situation, but he's basically letting it be known. He only wants to go one place. And he's kind of putting the team that now that that's well known, he's kind of putting the team that has him under contract in the tough spot.

Right. And so even though, yeah, in theory, you'd like to think, oh, all four teams know they can sign him. All four are going to up their offers. It might be that, oh, you know, he's, you know, he's he's honed in on one or two, and now those one or two kind of have you in their group. And I don't know how often that happens or not. This is me theorizing. But that would be my fear as a general manager in that position is, well, now everyone who I wanted to think they were acquiring him as a rental with a chance to extend knows he's a pure rental.

And that lowers the cost. Yep. No, I agree. InertNet says you may see some skills and abilities differently now that you did 10 years ago. Are there any players this year who you'd rank differently 10 years ago? So I think he's saying in the 2023 class. class, who would you have been much higher or lower on if you're using the 2013 Cory Prondman's Scouting Handbook?

That's probably a longer list that I'd like to imagine. It is probably where those smaller skilled forwards fit, like the guys like Benson, the guys like Andrew Kristol, maybe even Gabe Perrault to an extent, the guys who score a lot in junior, but you have some, at least on a couple of them, you have some questions on how good they're going to do as a pro. I think I have Benson and Perrault and even Cristal still rated quite highly. Maybe a guy like Riley Hyde or Cohn Zimmer, who I don't have rated as highly, would be guys that might get higher grades because they have a lot of offense and skill, but both of them have serious questions on their pro projections. So, I mean, those seem to be

the ones that come to mind. Wee Brister wants to know your views on Dallabor-Divorski, what makes him appealing as a prospect, and would you pick him in the top 10th? Dvorsky's been a really tough one for me this season. I've seen him play a lot between live and video, you know, quite a bit over the last two years. And he's a really good hockey player. He's got a ton of skill. He could shoot the puck well.

He scores a lot at the junior level. He's done pretty well internationally with Slovakia over various events over several years. Skating, I think, is just okay. I think his compete isn't bad, but it's not a major asset. So it's basically just a skill argument. And I'm not sure what you've thought, Max, but when I've watched him, like, I see he's really talented, but I haven't seen, like, electric skill. When you're an average-sized guy with just okay skating, like, you're, to be a top-10

pick, you need to have, like, electric skill. Like, think about how skilled Matt Boldie is, and he didn't even go on the top 10. And I would argue he is more skilled than Dvorsky is. is. You know, it's, it would be, I would be hard pressed to do that right now in that range. I don't have him there. I know maybe a minority of scouts who have him in that range, but, but I'm not there with him right now. If we, we'd have to go back and see which order I had it, but I remember in our preseason predictions episode draft wise, I think I said that Leo Carlson would vault himself to be a top 10 pick and Dvorsky would vault himself to being a top five pick.

Carlson has certainly vaulted himself into being a top five pick, and I'm worried that Dvorsky is going to end up dropping out of the top 10. I like the player. But Carlson is a great example of what I was just talking about. He's, again, he's bigger than Dvorsky. He's six foot three, but he's not a great skater, but he's, you watch his SHL games. His skill is just dynamic. I mean, he really stands out with what he can do with the puck, and I just, I have not seen

that when I've watched Dvorsky. It's actually, this is not what the question's about, but you and I were talking about comps for Carlson offline a few days ago. What about Boldie? How far off is he from Boldie? Yeah, I don't hate it. I mean, I think he might even be better than Boldy when it's all said and done, but he may not be too. It really depends on how he transitions to the pace of the higher levels, but I think Boldie is a really good one. There's an implication there too about the position that people, I guess, will pick up on.

But, Dvorski, I think, is probably more of a true center, I guess, but it is interesting. I think he probably back half or outside the top 10, very back half or outside the top 10 at this point. I wouldn't hate it at 9 or 10, but I think if you gave me, if I gave you Dvorsky or Oliver more, I think, I mean, I'm probably taking more. What about you? Yeah. Like I would take more. I would, at least among the centers, like I might even, I would probably take Yeager over him right now personally. I think, I think, I think, I think, Dvorsky has more skill than Yeager, but Yeager is both faster and competes better. think, and I don't think you're giving back that much offense. I would like to keep being a believer in Dvorisky, but I want that kind of signature moment or stretch here to... I think if he goes to the U18 Worlds, I think that'll be a big moment for him, depending

on how he performs there. Yeah, for sure. Jacob Anderberg, is Jimmy Snuggard, NHL ready for next year, or would he benefit from staying in college another year, going as a leader, more responsibility, add to his game, etc. I mean, and he's having an outstanding year now. he's one of the best players scoring wise in college hockey right now. I still lean to one more year. I like it when the guys play two years at college,

especially in Snuggarood's case where he's not an amazing skater. It gives him more time to physically develop so you can go right to the NHL instead of going to the American League right away. It'll be really interesting to see what next year's world junior team looks like for the United States because I think you've got three guys who are really good prospects and really good college players. and Snuggarwood, Logan Cooley, and Cutter Goce. And what decisions do all three of them make? My guess is Cooley signs and will be in Arizona next year.

But I might advise Snuggard and I might advise Goce to stay. And then those guys can go with Lane Hudson. They can go with Will Smith and Ryan Leonard and Oliver Moore and be part of like, and Stramel and Brindley and be part of this really great World Junior Club next year for the States. So that would be where I would lean right now. C-Han says, what's your read on Vili Hainel? He's had multiple cups of coffee in the NHL and has unquestionable offensive talent, but is just not stuck around yet.

He's still very young for a defenseman, but I'm just not sure he fits in well with the Jets. Thoughts? The Jets are a team, Corey, that we've talked about this before. They already have their kind of small offensive D, and I wonder how big a part of that this is. Yeah, no, I think with Hinole, it's a good question. I agree with the questioner that he has really good offensive hockey sense and vision. He's kind of like one of those bubble guys, though.

Like he's a good skater, but he's not an amazing skater. He's like 5 foot 11. So his value isn't defensive in the NHL. So it has to be offense, but it's okay. Is it good enough offense to feel comfortable playing him every day at even strength? And he's kind of on that precipice right now. And we'll see whether. it works out with him in Winnipeg or not. But I think those are always kind of the

concerns when you pick a small defenseman who is offensively minded, is they need to be special offensively to be a top four defenseman in the NHL. And Hanola has looked good in the American League, but I would argue he has not looked special offensively yet. I mean, he would have to displace one of, right, like a Nate Schmidt or, and I don't think, I don't see that happening. And I don't think you're playing him over Dylan Samberg. So it, I mean, could you see him getting traded here? I could definitely see that. Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I almost, it's hard for me to look at the organization and really pick out where his future is exactly. Yeah, that's how I feel as well. John D. Please

explain why a prospect's age seems so important in his evaluation. Players who are young in their class seem to be treated like gold while overage prospects are commonly dismissed. I'm probably guilty of this one, Corey. I think I fall in love with the June or later birthdays. And I think most people know you've got to make an adjustment on the October, November, December birthdays. But how do you feel about kind of the June, July, August versus the January, February? I think it matters, but I don't think you, and I definitely incorporate into my analysis. And I, you know, I think it's important, but it's definitely not the end all be all. And sometimes it can almost get too nitpicky.

Like, I remember I was having an argument with somebody the other day about Nate Danielson versus Brian Yeager. and they're like, well, Danielson is much older. Like, you know, he's a late birthday. And I think, like, Yeager's born February. So, you know, it's not, it's a couple of months of difference in terms of age. So, like, those, those trivial things I find come up more often than not. You know, a year, two years matters. If you're talking about maybe a 19 year old or a 20-year-old, you got to take into account, you know,

what does history tell us about these kind of players? And history sometimes is wrong. and sometimes there's evidence in front of your face to make you believe this guy is an exception because he's six foot two and he's a good skater and he's never had any offense, but now he's showing real offense. And it's like, okay, but he has this toolkit and now he has offense. Okay, so maybe he's going to be the outlier to the history. Those are all kinds of facts that you need to incorporate when you're doing these kind of exercises.

But it's important, but it should not be everything to your own. analysis. Where I, just to kind of play devil's advocate, like where it does kind of carry weight for me is especially when a player, when you're evaluating two players, even if they only have a few months between them, if one is in their third year in the league and one is in their second year in the league, I do think the year in the league matters a lot more for what I think of their production than the actual just raw age, because I think every year you play in a league, you should get that much better.

And I think in year three in a league, you're about as good as you're going to be. And year two, you might still have some room to grow. I think that's generally fair. Although, like I said, I think if we were talking about a guy who was his third year in the league and he's born December, and as far as this guy who's second year in the league, he's born in January, like, the stats that I have looked at have tend to show the difference between those two. If they have similar production, it's almost inconsequential in terms of their NHL projection. Okay, that's fair. I guess that's just maybe a mental bias of mine, then.

But I typically look at like the third year as like this is basically a draft plus one season. Yeah, like if it's a September guy who's a late birthday, like a September 27th versus a guy who's born in March, I think that's, I think that's a normal term. Yes. All right. That's fair. Christian Harris. What is it about Andrew Kristol that has him all over the place in rankings? Some of them comfortably in their top 10 out, some outside their top 25.

I think we've talked about him almost every episode here, but I think there's a lot of interest for this reason because this is going to be the guy. He's going to be the lightning rod in this draft between how I think. think a lot of the public scouts see him and a lot of the NHL scouts see him. I know. I almost rolled my eyes when we saw this question coming. I was like, I was like, it appears the same reason. It's like, nothing wrong with the player. I feel like we've already talked about him once in this episode.

Now we're talking about him a second time after what it seems like we talk about him every episode. Again, I don't know where he is at every single ranking, but I do know among people I talk to in the league, there is a discrepancy in terms of where people have him. and it's because of the pro projection. It is the fact that he has incredible skill. He is one of the leading players in the entire CHL in points per game. He was injured for a couple of weeks, but came back and not surprisingly still scoring.

But he is, I think, Central measuring him at like five, nine and a half, maybe five foot ten. He is a awkward-looking skater, you know, just a very unorthodox stride. And I think his compete level isn't bad, but it's not a major asset like it is, say, for Zach Benson. And so you look at this player and I ask, okay, who does he look like in the NHL? And I struggle to find it comparable. I don't think this was a good comparable, but like the best guy I was thinking of was like a wonky looking skating, five foot 10 winger with a lot of skill was Neil's Hoglander for a minute. I think Hoglanders compete is way better than his, but maybe Hoglander doesn't have quite the hockey sense this guy does.

And that comp worked for a while, but now Hoglander is no longer in the NHL. And after that, I kind of struggle to think of a guy who kind of looks like that. And I think Hoglander will be back, and I think he's a very good prospect. And I think Andrew is a very good prospect as well. But that is kind of the risk in this debate is when you can't think of guys to compare. these players too. I deal with this with Matthew Wood. I can't think of an NHL comparable for him. Doesn't mean they can't be the first. There was no comparable for Alex of Brinkett before he made the league. And now there's two, him and Cole Coughfield. But when there are no comparables, it just

doesn't mean he won't make it. It just, there's risk. And I think the risk is measuring the fact I talked to scouts who think he is a clear first rounder and I talked to some who would not take him in the first round. Yep. And I think what it comes down to is I think people want to look at it and say this guy who produces all this much, the knock is that he's small. It's not just that. Other else, we saw Cole Cofield go really high despite that.

It was the difference here in the skating that is going to make or break this. And we've seen guys like Brent Clark have big skating concerns, but he's six too, right? So it's all these things combined. It's not really all these. It's really the two big things combined. Sure. That account for this. Right. I think of the guys I kind of think of in terms of the direct comparables may not direct, but in maybe like somewhat similar cases, it would be Bobby Brink, who was the USHL's top score. But I would say maybe even arguably a worse skater than this guy. And but maybe like roughly same size and went eye in the second round. And I think of Ely Tolvin, who didn't put up gigantic numbers, but had a great track record of scoring.

A lot of accolades, but was a 5-10-ish, okay skating, okay, compete winger. And he went in the mid to late 20s in his draft. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, when you sent me, Corey, a couple of weeks ago sent me this like elite prospects list sorted of the five, was it 59 or 510 or smaller wingers and how many produce what they, you know, what you expect in the role Andrew Kristol would be playing, it is eye-opening of how little precedent there is for that.

And the guys who do usually have that skating as a key attribute. He is fighting against history to have a long NHL career. Doesn't mean he won't do it. But it's just there's risks in his profile. And as you kind of mentioned, the top of this question, I'm going to guess we'll be talking about this every single episode again. Many more times. Going forward.

I agree with you. I feel like I have to write about this player at some point and kind of like illustrate what I'm seeing. And because otherwise I kind of feel like when I say things like, oh, he has skating issues, some people maybe almost just like roll their eyes at me and be like, what's skating issues? He's two points per game. It doesn't seem to be holding him back in junior. So I feel like I need to defend my point maybe more clearly at some point in the draft season.

You'll get plenty of opportunities. I feel good saying that. Last one here. Can you touch a little bit on how you evaluate context and how big of a role that plays in your overall evaluations of players? There's three potent examples from here, Tanner Mollandike playing on a defensive-minded team without much scoring. If he was on a high-flying team like Winnipeg or playing with an elite talent like Bedard, would he look like a top-10 pick?

Is it fair to punish Dahlborg Dvorse for competing in the All-Svents game when he looks S-H-L-ready? His organization just isn't in that league. And is Denver Barkie's production more impressive, considering he's still stuck to the second power play unit. These are all questions kind of about how you evaluate a prospect's role and team context when you look at stuff like what we were talking about earlier. production, the historical context in the league.

Yeah, well, a couple of things to touch on. One, I would not call Saskatoon defensive-minded. They are fourth in their conference and goals. But he isn't, I think, almost kind of piggybacking on this point on Devin Barkie is Mollandick does not play on the first power play unit on his team, which they have the overage there, Aiden Dela, Gorgendier, I believe that how I say his name, definitely but that's okay. they have him on the top power play unit

so that's prevented Mollandik from getting that opportunities but he scored well as an underage he was a power play guy at the Holinka for Canada I don't sure this guy's gonna be like a big time offensive player but like I think of

I think of Mario Ferraro when I watch this player I think of Alexander Romanov when I watched this player you know average size high skate high end skating high compete players with fine offense but not not their selling points

and that's kind of what I think of when I watched this player. And I think if you watch Saskatoon, you know how they use their players, you've seen this player before, you can make those contextual adjustments. In terms of Dvorski, I'm not sure I ding him for playing only in the Ausfenskin, but the Alpsen skin is a lower league than the SHL, and you want to make sure that if he's playing in a lower league, he's having, you know, you want to adjust for that context and make sure that he's performing at least at a reasonable level.

I mean, I think his point per game is lower than, say, Leo Carlson's is, and the SHL. So, I mean, that's reasonable information and discussing how his performance is. But when he's gone to juniors this year, he's been a two-point-per-game player. And I know there were many scouts who went to go watch him when they heard he was getting a junior assignment to see him have the puck all the time and to see what he can do at that level. So those, you have to use all the information. His junior play, the Al-Sfenskin play, the World Juniors, and possibly the U-18s, and evaluate him in terms So last one, Denver Barkey. Yeah, like London's a loaded team.

And you have to account for that when looking at him, when you're looking at guys at other players on that team or other top teams, like say the Ottawa 67s. That's always part of the evaluation. And it's always really impressive when you have a guy like, say, Zach Benson who is on one of those top teams and is still one of their best players. Like that's a massive argument in his favor. But I don't think Scouts are holding against Barkey that he plays lower in the lineup.

on a top team. They know what he is, whether it's going to have to be a professional hockey player or an NHL player at his size without elite speed. I think he needs to prove that at higher levels, but I think people know this is a talented player, this is a competitive player, and that he would score more on a different team. In your experience, are people really knocking Dvorsky that hard for playing in the old Svenskine? That one surprised me in the question. Yeah, no. I have not, I haven't heard that one in particular. I think, you know, I think the argument always is with these pro players, whether it's Dvorsky, whether it's Chalet, others, is being too critical on players who play the predominant

parts of their season in the pros, no matter to the level. It's hard to play professional hockey as a 17-year-old. But when you have guys like Leo Carlson, you have guys like David Reimbacker who do it, it's all the more impressive, right? Right, for sure. And I mean, like, it's probably hard. Y'all, Svenzkin probably doesn't have as many prospects of this caliber

compared to the SHL, but they are still, like, the team's the best team in the Alspanskin goes to the shl at the end of the year. Like they're not that far off. Yeah. I haven't seen people knocking Dvorsky for that. Yeah, it depends on the caliber of Elspenskin team you're on. That means a big difference.

The worst and the best Alspanskin team could be a massive difference. But in terms of the caliber of players you're with, so it's all relevant. And there's been plenty of draft eligibility to play in the Alvanskin. So you have comparables to base it off on. Like I said,

I use that a Rinebacker example because you and I were talking about the other day about, you know, David Yurchick versus Reimbacher and comparing how their seasons have looked and both of them played very well versus pros not surprising your check going and plays very well versus pros right away in North America it's just you know guys who tend to do that tend to be really high draft picks and premium prospects and it's because they're not doing that doesn't mean that

they're not a very good prospect yeah all right that is going to do it for us awesome mailback today guys great questions keep those coming and thanks for listening to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. You can follow us on YouTube at YouTube.com slash at The Athletic Hockey Show. And right now you can get a one-year subscription to The Athletic for $2 a month when you visit Theathletic.com slash hockey show.

Do that and we'll talk to you soon.