The Athletic Hockey Show - Sizing up the NHL Draft combine, Corey's draft confidential and mailbag

Episode Date: June 16, 2023

On this edition of the Prospect Series, Max and Corey are joined by Chris Peters from Flo Hockey to look back on the combine with the draft less than two weeks out. The guys look at the measurements of some of the more notable prospects, the improvement of the defensive draft class, plus Corey's draft confidential and the boys dig into the Prospect Series mailbag.Subscribe to The Athletic Hockey Show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowNuts.com is offering new customers a free gift with purchase and free shipping on orders of $29 or more at Nuts.com/hockey23.For 15% off MudWtr go to mudwtr.com/hockeyshow and use code HOCKEYSHOW to support the show and get a discount!Go to dave.com/nhlshow to sign up for an ExtraCash account and get up to $500 instantlyGo to grammarly.com/tone to download and learn more about Grammarly Premium’s advanced tone suggestions.Stay cool and dry all summer with Birddogs and get a FREE Yeti-style tumbler at birddogs.com/athletic use promo code ATHLETIC at checkout Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Hey, everybody, Max Polkman here alongside Corey Promin and Chris Peters of Flow Hockey for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show's Prospect Series. And gentlemen, we are back from the Combine now. We're going to get into that today. We got Corey's draft confidential, which I'm really excited to get into with him. Of course, the mailbag. But let's start with the Combine.

We all three got to share an evening together. before Chris got the flu of the wrath in the form of the flu on Combine Day. How you feeling? I'm feeling a lot better today, that's for sure. So we're back in business. But yeah, that was like the worst timing because I got COVID at the World Juniors and then I got this here. Chris was expecting to do wall-to-wall coverage of the Combine. He just didn't expect those walls to be his hotel room walls.

I do want everyone to know that he had a 10 out of 10 karaoke performance. before it all was south. So at least we'll always have that. I'd give anything to go back to feeling like I felt in that moment. And then like, because it was like maybe 10 hours later that it was a complete opposite situation for me. Yeah. So, yeah.

So not great, but, you know, we're back and now we got to get ready for the draft. It's crazy how quickly it comes as soon as the combine is over here. They're just like, oh, okay, now we're almost there. So I'm excited to get into it. Well, that hasn't been the case the last few years. This is just, I think it's because this is our first June draft. And since the JQU draft. Yeah, no kidding.

That one, it's, that's something that I felt when I was healthy at the combine, was that, oh, it's nice to be back to pretty much normal here. So, you know, I felt, felt real, finally again, like a normal draft season. I thought 2019 was a lot of fun to cover. And this, this draft has been very exciting as well. Let it be the last time we ever have to notice normalcy is all I will say. Let's get right into it, though, from the takeaways, because I think, obviously, the big bulk of the value comes from the meetings that you have at the combine for teams.

I think that's true for us, too, bumping into people. Corey, I'm sure you've got lots of intel that you'll disperse in the coming days. But I wanted to get into some of your takeaways first from the Saturday, which is the testing day. You were posted up much of the day, right over by the measurement station. And I imagine that that was not an accident. Who stood out to you in what they were measuring in at? Yeah, I think the measurements are always something that's the most interesting from the combine because those are official measurements. There are official measurements during the season for these players,

but not maybe with the precision that they use it with at the combine. And there are actually quite a few players that have unofficial measurements still going into the combine because for whatever reason, NHL Central scouting has not been able to measure them for one reason or another during the season. And it's always interesting when you see two different, quote, unquote, official measurements. And there is some deviations in those official measurements. Makes you wonder whether there was an issue with one method or the other. Sometimes I always think it's just an average of the two. But a couple of ones I thought were interesting.

Zach Benson previously mentioned in 5'9, measures that a 5.9 and 3 quarters. I think that's significant. If you think about there between a 59 and a 510 guy, I think that's a significant variable and projecting him to the NHL on the opposite end, Gavin Brindley, who was previously officially measured at 5 foot 9, measures in a 5 foot 8 in that same weight that we just talk about Benson. I think that it may only seem like 1 inch, but at that part of the height scale, that's a significant thing as well.

Edward Shaleh, who I mentioned thinking there was unofficial measurements. I had people doubt Central's unofficial measurement all season. that he was at 6-2, he does measure at 6-2. So I think, you know, when you think about his skating and his skill and now he's 6-2, I think that's going to be a, you know, you can pick apart his season in his compete at times. But that's a very appealing toolkit. Jacob Devorak, I believe, is also unofficial, does measure in at 6'5, 200-something pounds. That, you know, big defenseman that he actually went through the combine exercises,

I thought was very notable because of his various injuries. So he had throughout the season. So he does actually go through the workout session and he measures in well. I think this is a guy who people think has the toolkit of a late one early two type of defenseman. I think with him is just going to be about medicals and whether they think his body's going to hold up over the long term. And finally, one of the measures I thought was interesting was Carson Rakekoff, who I think was measured in around 6-2, 6-2 and a half, I think came about an inch, quarter inch to a half inch taller. You know, he's closer to 6.3 now, which I think is very notable.

What you consider his skating and his skill, even if he was very inconsistent this season. I think that's a guy with the traits to be a hard job. Here's what I want to know. They do the height and the weight measurements and I guess the body fat, right? But when you're talking about 17-year-old kids in most of these cases, some have been 18 for a few months, how much are teams really keyed into those other measurements? Is that something they care about? Are we just assuming all these kids are going to lose a little bit of baby fat as they go?

I think that they absolutely take that into account. And I think part of it is where they were at the beginning of the season to where they were now, especially in the weight can change and fluctuate because a lot of players will lose and gain weight throughout a season pretty regularly. That's common. They might not focus as much on that. They're going to be looking more at the physiology of the. the player as well.

You know, that's what some of the medicals, I think that the medicals end up mattering more in terms of things like that. But yeah, body fat composition, different things like that. It's like at this age, you know, there should be probably lower numbers in that regard. And that's something that, you know, if there's a player that isn't in shape relative to the rest of the class, that will be a mark against them because, you know, at this stage of your career, you kind of have to be kind of honed in on that stuff already. but yeah I mean I you know I think in the at the end you know like Corey was saying these matters of

quarter inches half inches I mean they they do factor in because you know there it changes different probabilities and different things that you're looking at a player for for what they can ultimately be what role they can ultimately play and more and more you know size is one of the statistics that you are tracking to you know work on those projections I think with the the body fat percentage uh for the most part of the I think it's insignificant, just about what information for the team strength coaches is he at 8, 9, 10, 11, 12%, you know, almost all the people who get tested kind of fall in that range. But when there's some extremes, whether extremely good or extremely bad, I think that

is something to note, like, like, Sauchin, I think measured in like something like 4% body fat. That's, I would say, unusual. And so, you know, kind of shows some premium athletic dedication there. And, you know, on the other end of the scale, when guys have high body fat, fat percentages. I think like Andrew Gibson from the Greyhounds and Jacob Fowler, the goalie from Youngstown, were closer to something like 18%, you know, that's a little bit more concerning. And it's not about those two, but just in general, when you have those high body fat percentages, people around the league start asking questions about, you know, is this an issue that is reflective of something in their work ethic? Is that why this is the case? This is a physiology

thing? It just begs further questions. But I have seen guys. who get dinged on teams lists because they're just, even if they look like good hockey players and had good seasons, they don't look like athletes. Couldn't you argue, though, that like a guy who's got that 4% body fat, you know, I'm not saying Grayson Sauchin is maxed out, but couldn't you argue that's like there's almost like less projectability, I guess, in that because you're not going to bank on, oh, well, when we get them with our strength guys, he'll level up. Yeah, and I think that's kind of always the weird part of the combine is I think everybody

he always looks as the results and tries to ask those questions. This is mean, is it a good thing if he does well? Is it a bad thing if he does well or vice versa? But I think in general that guys just take the best hockey players. And 99.9% of what their list is is what happens on the ice and any off-ice information they might get. There are, of course, tests that are done to do the actual athletic, you know, the horizontal jump, the vertical jump. They're doing pull-ups. They're doing that windgate test that is,

just seems like it would make me, uh, have a reaction. I don't, I think, uh, I don't think I'd last too long on the wind gate. I guess we'll will say that. Um, I want to know, Corey, who stood out in those tests, uh, for you in, in, in the course of the Saturday. Yeah, I think the ones that I think are the most interesting are the ones that kind of measure lower body strength to, to an extent. Like, basically, you know, the jumps, whether it's the straight-up jumps or the long jumps, because I think you're measuring, you know, leg strength and which, whether you believe it or not, people, some people in the league think that translates to skating ability. You know, it would be nice if like the NFL combine, we could just measure skating ability

and, you know, actually just have all these guys skate around and do the things that we are actually asking them to do as professionals, but we don't. we do this all off ice instead. And I think there was a couple of guys who stood out in a positive way. I think Nick Lardis is the forward from Hamilton, who had a very good second half, really excelled in a lot of those. And I've only graded him as a good skater, not a high-end skater. There's a couple people in the league who believe he can be a high-end skater in the NHL.

And if you kind of looked at the way he tested, I can see the argument there. a couple other guys who consistently showed up well in those tests were guys like Cameron Allen, strong skating, you know, very athletic guy from Guelph who didn't have a great year. Same thing with Charlie Stramel who didn't have a great year, but he tested well. And, you know, we've talked about his athletic tools all season, Nate Danielson, who we've talked about the athletic tools all year, Samuel Hansick, you know, a lot of guys who you're like, yeah, yeah, yeah, he looks like an athlete essentially. And that it's soon surprised you that he does well.

when, especially when you're testing their lower body strength. How about just in terms of someone like Danielson, Nick Danielson, the Brandon Weakings, like when you're projecting him up, like, okay, you're obviously relying on big toolsy center who can skate and all that, but why should someone care about the jumping or the pull-ups for him? I mean, they probably really shouldn't. I mean, they probably really shouldn't. I mean, I think this is a small piece of the puzzle, and I think it almost can confirm

what you've actually seen on the ice. I don't think we needed to see Danielson or Stramel or Nick Lardis jump around to confirm that they're good skaters. You know, I think we've seen that. I guess with a guy like Lardis, like I said, when his numbers were like really, really good across the way and you can make maybe you wonder if he is, if there is something more there to come, if there is like a high end speed in there that might show up more consistently in future years.

But no, for guys like Stramel and Danielson and Honson. I think if you watched them all season, I think you can tell they were big guys who can skate. Yeah. How about the rest of the kind of the buzz over the course of the week? I mean, I feel like we've talked on this show a lot about, you know, the defense group and it being one of the most interesting angles, you know, to this draft because it wasn't what people were talking about for a long time. But it seems like recently we're starting to see some of those names rise. Yeah. I mean, we just did our second full staff mock at the athletic.

where we had the writers pick the first round. We just did 16 picks about a month or so ago when we did the first one. And when I sent it around to the league, I think there was the two biggest feedbacks were, one, Max Boltman's wheeling and dealing as he does the double trade-up, including getting up to five to get Maveh Mischkoff for Detroit. But the second one, which I think was more interesting, was the comment about defensemen, in that I think in our mock we had six defensemen going in the first round, which would be among the fewest in modern history for a first round.

And it's not just towards the end of the first round. I do think high in the first round, you will see defensemen go. I feel pretty strongly David Reimbachers going very early in the draft. I don't know exactly which pick it's going to be, But I think it's still going to be fairly early. I think Tom Willander is going to be a minimum a top 15 pick in this draft. I can't, again, I can't tell you where he's going to go. But I would say between just how, you know, how impressive he was at the Combine,

how impressive he was towards the end of the year, and the fact that I think most, a lot of teams have him rated as their second or third defenseman in this draft. I think that that guy typically translates to a high draft pick. and I was a little surprised coming out of the combine how many teams I talked to who loved Dimitri Simeh and had like a really high grade on him. And because of his KHL Varybal, like with Michkov, like with Daniel Bouch, like with Mikhail Goliayev,

it doesn't, I don't know where he's going to land. But I do know that there is, it's not universal in the league, but there's quite a few organizations that think that he, could be the best defenseman in the draft. And so I think when it's all set and done, I expect four defensemen to go in the top 20, those three in XLSN and Pelica. I could see all four of them go in the top 15, frankly,

although I think that's less realistic. But I think you will see four defensemen go in the top 20, I think. We had an over-under question not long ago that was about the defenseman in the top 10. Based on what you're saying, it almost makes me think, could we see three in the top 12? I, yeah, I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out.

In terms of, in terms of like maybe down the line defensemen, like so, we have six going in the first round. And I think we kind of universally agreed when we were doing our staff mock that there was a gap between Sandin and Pelica to the next best guy. Who the next best guy is, we'll see. But just, I think, you know, I think we had all of her bonk going late. We had Etienne Moran from Moncton going late. and I don't think all these guys are going to go in the first.

I think like Bonk, like Moran, and like some of these other guys I'm going to name, there's going to be some defensemen that just slide out because there's only going to be 32 first-round picks. But I think, you know, there are teams that like Lucas Dragon-Sev. There are teams that like Theo Linstein. There are teams that like Maxim Sturback. There are teams that like Tanner Mollandik quite a bit.

And there are teams that like Mikhail Gouyev still. and Jacob Devorak, like I mentioned before. So I think at some point, some of those guys, I think, are going to work their way into the first. I would guess we had six going in our staff muck. I'm guessing that number will be closer to seven or eight on draft day. You mentioned Etienne Moran. Chris, you were there in the room, I believe, when Dan Marr said Etienne Moran is his favorite D in this class, which I think was one of the standout comments of that availability.

What did you make of that? I mean, you know, I think everybody's got different opinions on that. And, you know, he had a good, the thing about the central scouting is that their list does come out before the under 18 world championship. You know, I thought that he played well there. You know, I think there was enough, you know, his whole season, his body of work this season was exceptional. You know, the offensive numbers were very good. And, you know, I think there's a real maturity to his game. You know, I don't have him as one of the top four guys in this class.

but, you know, I do think that he has very projectable traits. And so, yeah, you know, I mean, it's always interesting to hear kind of central scouting's take. I think that sometimes it's, you know, it can be quite different than that of NHL teams, but they operate like in like the 33rd NHL team essentially, which so it does, it does provide an interesting kind of dynamic to the whole process. But that was a comment that I did think stood out to me as well as the fact that, you know, Basically, if the Russians were able to get a visa, if they, hey, you know, if you're here, if you're in the United States, come on over. You know, like, like it's like it's that simple. But, you know, it's that aside from that, you know, I think that there is a wide variety.

And to Corey's point, I think the, the Simashev buzz has grown deafening in the latter stages of this draft just because of he has so many projectable tools. and I don't think that teams are, you know, they feel like if they're a top-tier Russian player, you know, you're going to use the pick that you think they're valued at for your franchise. I mean, there's certainly teams that will weigh the risk differently, but, you know, I think that there is a chance that he's really going to break things up a little bit more than I previously thought that he would coming into this first round. Yeah, I think the team's general approach with the Russians is if it's close, take the other guy. But when it comes to guys who you have really high grades,

on at some point it's not close. And that point might happen very early. Going back to Moran, Chris, did you think he looked like a first rounder at the U-18s? That probably wasn't, like, I didn't mind him there, but I don't know. No, I mean, I want to say flatly that I disagree with with the fact that he's among the best defensemen in this draft.

Like, you know, like I do think that he has a chance. I can see the case that can be made for him to be a first round draft pick, no question. And they're very well, maybe a team that takes them in that range. Yeah, I mean, I think his cue play was more impressive than the Switzerland play. For me, I mean, I mean, if the offense, he showed in Moncton is great. There are some mild concerns in the league on the skating. I've shared it at times, not shared it at other times.

He's a 6-0 defenseman. So there's a degree of risk there, but it's a lot of offense. I mean, the degree of offense he showed and the skill and the scoring ability. It's pretty interesting. You know, like I said, I thought it was interesting comment from Dan. Further interesting in the fact that he wasn't even Central's highest rated North American defensemen from their final list. But of course, I'm sure he might have his own opinion that might have differed from his staff. But, like I said, I think Moran has got a chance to be a late one.

And you had talked to Corey previously about there were some teams that had a lot of buzz on. on Morad, even leading up to this. Yeah. Yeah. I think he will be the first QMJL player picked. Doesn't mean he's going to the first round, but I think he'll be the first Q guy picked. Okay, good stuff.

We're going to take a quick break. It'll be right back to talk about Corey's draft confidential. All right, gentlemen, let's get into now one of my favorite stories that Corey does all year, the draft confidential, where he pulls scouts and executives from around the league, and he gets a lot of candid answers on this. And so I would highly encourage people to check this out if you have time. And we're going to start at the very top. Obviously, we've got to talk about Connor Bedard here.

I thought that the Connor Bedard section was interesting. Partly, Corey, I don't know if this was intentional, but the way you kind of arranged it, right? So the first quote in it is, NHL executive, he might be the best junior player I've seen. NHL scout right after him. I worry the hype on him is getting a little out of control. I think this is like a really good juxtaposition to show that like, hey, you know, we've talked about all these things and the industry isn't necessarily settled on it either. You know, one guy mentions him as a same level of prospect as Austin Matthews.

The next guy mentions him as analogous to Jack Hughes. I thought this was one of the more interesting things right at the very top of the story. Right, because I think, you know, there's until you go back to like Patrick Cain's draft, it's hard to think of a guy who looked with at least the physical athletic traits that that BADART has as number one, you know, because Jack was small, He was an elite elite skater. So, you know, we have, I think you have to really go back to Kane to think of a guy who is that, basically, that size, who you're projecting to NHL stardom based purely on his skill and his hockey sense and his scoring ability. So I think that's where the interest in the projection comes.

Like, you know, you can talk to scouts. I who think he's going to have a 70 plus point season, even on Chicago. And I've talked to people who think, like, this might go like Jack Hughes's first year. This might go like Stephen Stamco's first year where there are some rough moments. And I think that's going to be a really fascinating thing to follow over his first couple of seasons in the NHL is just how quickly does that offense translate? And how long does it take for him to get to the point where I think we all think he can get to, which is being an elite level score in the NHL? The number two, I think, though, is the one where you started to find the real sports. splits, right? So you ask people who should Anaheim take there? I gotta be honest, I expected this to be

a fantilli runaway. And actually, Leo Carlson got a lot of love. And Matvei Michkov, there were people were not shy about saying, look, if this were just talking about talent, I would strongly consider Matve Michikov here. Yeah, well, those are two different topics. We'll touch on Anaheimah, too. And I do think in the league, Adam Fantili and Leo Carlson is a debate. I think at the end of the day, it will be fantilly. It's just my hunch from just what, not based on any information on what Anheim's going to do,

just from what I've seen of the two players. I just think it will be fantilly at the end of the day. But in the league, they see the discourse that goes on about the number two pick and how even at the athletic, we've at times written how this is a presumption. And I've gotten a lot of pushback on that, that there are a lot, there are people, quite a few people in the lead that would prefer Leo Carlson at two. Even, I don't know if that has a majority opinion.

In terms of Mitchcov, I mean, I mean, that was probably the most fascinating part of doing this story and talking to people around the league. There was no middle ground when talking to people about Mitchcov. Either you were all in or you were out. Like, I didn't talk to many people in the league who were like, yeah, if he's there at six or seven, I would do it kind of thing. It was either you believe in the player, you want to take him, or you'd be happy to let somebody else take him. Yeah, I found that really fascinating as well. Because, I mean, I think that with the Mitchcov discussion, you know, we always keep coming back. Like, there's just, there's just so few players that any of us have really seen that looks like him, you know, that has that high-end offensive know-how.

Like just an incredible, you know, there was a person, I've been saying it for a long time that I think he's an offensive genius. And there were, you know, you're hearing that now from NHL people who are saying the same thing where he is a genius with the puck on his stick. And so when you're talking like that, you have to say, okay, well, really, how, how aggressive do we want to be? And so, Max, when I saw your mock draft and trading up, you know, it's like that could be the aggressive kind of move that needs to happen for him. him to go, you know, in that early stage because, yes, teams are are concerned and there are definitely teams that are poking holes in him in a number of ways where it's not just about the hockey. It's about, you know, his, his maturity, his, his personality, his, I mean, and, and the thing is is that a lot of teams are having to go off of what they're hearing from sources,

what they're hearing from trusted people in Russia. And so, and it's not surprised, it wasn't surprising to me to start hearing that stuff kind of coming up. now because it's that stage where I think there are teams that would absolutely love to poison the well and see them drop and get a chance at him. I remember when I was watching NFL draft coverage, all the holes that were being poked in C.J. Stroud and the lead up to the draft. It feels like, and that kind of felt as this was starting to get louder, that's kind of what it felt like to me was like, hey, let's see how many holes we can poke in him

and just try to sewer his value a little bit, even if it's marginally. to see if he'll drop. But I do think that there could be a team out there that's going to get aggressive enough. And it would be interesting. I thought Montreal as the place where that could happen, you know, like that makes some sense to me if they feel like there's a guy that they can get later on that they like. But yeah, but I mean, that was very fascinating. And then also the thing that I think when we're getting back to Leo Carlson and Adam Fantilli, the real conversation is it comes back to hockey sense. And I think that that was, you know, if you've watched Adam Fantilli for the last three years, if you saw him his second year in the U.S.HL, you probably saw a player that had all the physical traits, all the offensive ability, but didn't necessarily have that refined offensive kind of drive and ability to find multiple options. He had a little bit of tunnel vision at times. He was, you know, skating into trouble a lot more. But I think we saw a real maturation in his game this year at Michigan. He was better at using his teammates. He was better at finding soft areas of the

he was still as aggressive as he ever was. And I think that that's an improvement. But Leo Carlson is an incredibly intelligent hockey player to have done what he did at the pro level this season, to have played as well as he did at the World Championship and to fit right into a team where he was playing with high-end players that could do, that he could make better and that could make him better and that, you know, he played really well off of Lucas Raymond in that tournament. That says a lot about the quality of that player. And granted, you know, Adam Fantilli won the gold medal at the. that tournament. He didn't have as big of an impact for Team Canada. Did score a highlight real

goal there that was one of the best goals of the tournament. But, you know, we were seeing consistency from Leo Carlson. There's a little bit of predictability to him. He's a little less wild. He's a little more, you know, refined, I would say, in terms of his offensive game. And so that's where I see a lot of that debate happening. And it's a reasonable thing to talk about because hockey sense is going to get weighed much more heavily than certain things like everybody loves the aggressiveness and the competitiveness and the motor and the speed of Adam Fantilli, but then you get to that hockey sense conversation. It's not like, we're not saying Adam Fantilli is a dumb player because he's not.

And he showed that at Michigan this year. You don't put up the number of points you do and have that level of dominance that you do without being a smart hockey player. But I think that that's the real debate here. And you saw that show up in some of Corey's answers from NHL personnel was that that was a major factor in the decision process. One of the scouts that he thinks he could be Barkov. Yeah, which is, I think, is high for me. I don't think that kind of two-way game, but I get what it's coming from. And obviously, again, he was so good versus men this year in the SHL.

Like, he had some dominant games ships that you showed incredible offensive ability, especially for a guy that size. You know, I agree with Chris. I think the hockey sense is better in Carlson than it is in Fantili. But, like, man, it's like, like, it's hard to look at Fantilli and not see just a ton of offense. in his game and a guy who I think is still going to score plenty in the NHL. I think could score just as well as Carlson will to go with better physicality and better feet.

I mean, I don't know. Like, I can argue, I can argue that Carlson is smarter than Fantilli. Sure. I can argue, even though Carlson is incredibly skilled.

I think Fantili might be more skilled. Yeah, that's fair. Again, you guys got to look at what he did in college this season and what, like how dominant he looked skill-wise. Same thing in the USHL as an underage and even as a draft minus two. he has a lot of offense in his game.

It's, it's, I just, because that's why I just think at the end of the day, it will be fantili at two. I get the debate. I get, I get how good Leo is. I get how good he was at the world, especially playing down the middle. You've got to have that discussion, but I think it will still be fantilly at the end of the day. Let's go back to Mitchcoff now. And Chris, you mentioned, right, he's kind of this perfect idea of like, what would it take to break the NHL,

drought from trades up into the early part of the top 10, top five. I think it takes a situation like this where you have a guy who there are teams who feel he belongs on talent in the conversation at two or three. And there are teams that are going to be scared off from taking him, whether it's because of information gaps, whether it's because of the contract, whatever. To me, that's what it takes to create these kind of conditions. And I think reading these comments from the scouts and executives, you hear it, executive says he's a high. hockey genius. He's the second best player in the draft being equal. Scouts as he saw Teresenko the same agent, Mitchkov is better. Quite a lot. But, right. Yeah, exactly. But, you know, there are

other people who are saying, you know, he's very good, but the best prospect since Ovechkin is over the top, he's closer to Teresenko, then Ovi, blah, blah, blah. I think this is the situation where everyone agrees he's talented, but if you have pause, this is the spot, Corey, where I think it would behoove you to try to move back rather than just pass on him head up. Right. And I think it's just a way to, you have to maximize the asset because if you're picking, you know, whatever, four, five, six, you know, those are very highly valued spots in the draft.

And if you may, I don't know what organizations believe, but being San Jose, Montreal, Arizona, affiliate seven, whatever. If you don't believe in the player, but there's another organization that does, they might be willing to pay the price that they believe the player is worth to come get that asset. So I think that is definitely a condition. There's something that Chris kind of mentioned before, which is kind of like the information that's coming out about the player. You know, we hear rumors about players all the time. And there's been things I've seen written elsewhere about Mitch Kopp's personality that I think is interesting to read in the context. That's what I mentioned to C.J. Stroud

stuff that led up to the NFL draft. I've met Mitch Kov once was a 10-minute interaction. It was a year or a half ago. So I don't want to pretend I'm an expert on the player. I would say my best observation from meeting him was he's a little cocky, a little arrogant, a little standoffish, didn't flip me off or do anything that I would think was, you know, all that terrible. Wouldn't be the first 17-year-old hockey player I ever met that was a little arrogant. And that's kind of why I was wanted to talk to Chris about that and maybe related to your experience dealing in PR, may not name any specific players.

But when you were with the program, did you ever meet an exceptionally talented young hockey player who may not have been the most likable person, but had a good NHL career? Yep. Yep, yep. There's certainly a guy who is a high pick, who is probably one of the strangest individuals

I've been around is at that age, at that age where it's different. And, you know, and that's the thing. I mean, like, there are actually quite a few. There may be some that are, you know, Stanley Cup champions now. But, you know, I think that we definitely, there are teams that are definitely going to value high character and different things like that. But I think in the case of Mitch Cove in particular, you know, this, the conversation

about the arrogance and different things like that. I mean, honestly, you know, sometimes you want a little bit of arrogance. You don't want a guy that's going to be a cancer on your team. You don't want a guy that's going to impact your, you know, your group that negatively. And we've seen definitely at the NHL level, there are some players that have really done a number on their teams in some way or another. That said, you know, I think that a lot of people live with a lot of different things if you're good. And not saying that all things should be forgivable if you're a good hockey player. Arrogance is one of the things that absolutely can.

And I think that it would be very difficult for teams to assess how much this guy would impact your dressing room from the limited interactions that we have. To me, arrogance is something you can very easily grow up from. The only time it would scare me is if I felt like you were unjustly arrogant, right? Like if you were coming off like, oh, I think I'm ready today and I'm looking at you. I'm like, buddy, you're a second round pick. And Max, that is actually I find more common than there are with the top guys. that are, you know, the guys that can back it up, nobody really says much about it. They might get annoyed by certain things.

They might not be the most everybody's favorite player in the dressing room. But if they help you win, there, it's, but there are a lot of younger players that lack self-awareness and are because they've, and they've also, a lot of them have been in situations where they have been told they're the best, where they have been the best player. And then they get into these other situations. And when you get to this level, you get humbled very quickly. I found a lot of players realize, oh, I thought it was this, but I'm not even close to that. And sometimes you don't know it until you see it.

But again, the other thing is, is a lot of these guys, I've also, there have been a lot of guys that I have been around that definitely had behavioral concerns as younger players. And they grew up because they're 17. And they're 18. They grow up. and that is ultimately what happens. I mean, there are certain things that you will never be able to get over on certain players, and there are plenty of other things that you're going to let pass by if they have it. So, yeah, but I think especially in Mitchcoff's case, you know,

I think that the teams that are going to make the decision to take him are going to have done as much due diligence as they possibly can within the circumstances, and if they're comfortable enough, they're going to make that push. Yeah, like I think, I don't want to simplify it based on my, I've limited interaction with him and say I know his personality thoroughly. I don't. You know, I've talked to the same people around the league about him. And listen, people might say, yeah, he's not a great teammate or whatever, or he's, you know, a moody individual.

Like, it's hard to confirm what that means or not. And I feel like what I want to be careful is we don't go all in on this one person where we don't do this for everybody. Like, is it really fair to ask this about Mitchcove? when we don't do the same thing for all the WHL kids. You know, you know, it's, is it because of something system, you know, really wrong with him?

Or is it just because this has been the dude in the limelight for so long? And, like, I don't, like, I mean, Chris kind of made the point earlier. I mean, there are people in the league who have never, who have said very not nice things about Jack Eichel for many years. For many years. And I,

and I'm sure he gives no shits about, about them right now. Yeah, and this is where I think this comes back to the fact that teams can't go there. They can't really interact with him as much. Like, I think this stuff takes on a life of its own because of how little people actually get, you know, time people would get to spend with him. And you just, you don't get to sort it out, right? Like, I think, you know, I get you're saying it's happened with other players before

too, but like, I think it reaches these heights because of the information gap. Yeah, I think it's reasonable. I think people like, they got it. The teams I've interviewed Mitchcoff, it's all. been typically by Zoom through interpreters. It's not the same setup. It would be in past years. So I do get the concerns.

And like Chris said, everyone's going to do their homework and reach their own reasonable conclusions. I'm definitely not an expert on the player and his personality by any means. But I mean, when it comes to stuff like this, like my approach is, is there a smoking gun out there? Did somebody do something at some point?

Is there something? that even led to him being removed from a team. And as far as I can tell the answers to that question is no. And it's why I'm, I just, it's not that I don't think it's relevant or possibly important, but I think when, as kind of Chris said, the lead up the discussion, I think when it comes to this caliber of talent and this caliber of player, like, again, if it's close, take the other guy. I just miss my mentality, but I mean, a few picks into the draft, it's not going to become very close.

All right. Two more topics I want to hit from this draft confidence before we get to the mailbag. We got to be relatively quick on them. But Corey, you asked scouts, who's the next best guy after Will Smith, who we all think is going to go first. Oliver Moore gets a vote. I think Ryan Leonard got the majority of the votes. But there was a lot of love in there, too, even from some of the people who picked Leonard pumping up Gabe Perra. And I think that was a trend that we saw as the year go on, people get more and more kind of comfortable with.

It was going to have those four kits being Will Smith, Ryan Leonard, Gay Perrault, and Oliver Moore. In some order, I think you can talk to a bunch of scouts and you'll get different orders on those fours. I think you can make really reasonable arguments for all of them. But I think Perrault's momentum in the league is real right now. I think he's likely going to be the third of those guys picked. I think Leonard's going very high, but I don't think he's going to have to wait much longer to hear his name called.

It would not surprise me if he was a top 10 draft pick when it's all said and done. I look at him and I see really good analogies to the talent level and the way he plays in the body type and athletic tools to Colper Fetti. And Colpherfetti went 10. Culper Fetti, you would argue, went 10 in a slightly worse draft without as much. top end talent, even though it was good top end talent. This one has just, this is a very good top end in this draft. So maybe Gabe goes 10, maybe he goes 11, he goes 12, maybe goes 9. But I think that's the rough range where I expect him to go. And then the other one I think was the Western League question about, you know, if you presume again, and we do, Connor Bader is not in the, in the debate

here, who's next in the WHL? And the answers here were a little bit more scared. I think Nate Danielson took the majority of them, but Zach Benson gets some mentions, Samuel Hansick gets some mentions, Braden Yeager gets a mention. Chris, I think you read through this already. What did you make of the WHL intel here? Yeah, I mean, it is fascinating because, I mean, there obviously are so many good players. And, you know, the crazy thing is, you know, we've looked at the guys like the Yeager and Benson, and then you're like, okay, well, the measurables are different. You know, Danielson, with being the center that he is, I think he's really driven a lot. of interest throughout the year and has consistently risen up the ranks.

One of the things that stood out to me was one of the comments about Zach Benson, because he is a bit of a wild card in this draft. Where he's going to go is kind of, you know, for me, he was the second guy. You know, and, you know, the Corey's comp is Jonathan Marcioso, and we just saw him win the Khan Smife. And so you're like, okay, we can't have a full team of Jonathan Marcioso's, but if we have one, that's pretty good. And so I'm going to be fascinating to see if that changes, like, it won't at this stage of the game.

I don't think it's going to change the calculus too much. But it is an example of, hey, like, there's a lot of special things about Zach Benson and there's a lot of things that he does really well that, you know, you say, okay, well, if you get a guy that's going to be a 55 point guy, you tend not to want to pick those guys in the top five, but you kind of still need them. You know, there's so, you know, and then if he can have the playoff, you know, if he can be a playoff performer because he is such an ultra competitor, that's, going to be interesting too. But I think it probably, it probably does end up being Date Danielson. You know, I did see there was another, you know, a vote for Hanzek. And I think, especially after Hanzek had, you know, he's, he's healthy. He had a really good combine. He's got that size. You know, it would have been interesting to see, you know, him in a full season. But, you know, either way, it's not like you missed a ton of time. You know, so, but I do think in the end,

you know, I think it looks like it'll be Danielson as, that next guy. But I think that there's a little bit more, you know, Benson, I don't think is completely out of the question in that same kind of range and an area that Corey was talking about for Gabe Perot. I mean, I think those are two guys that are going to be really interesting to see where they go and in what order, considering how the whole season went where Benson seemed like the guy for a long time. And then here comes 132 points from Gabe Perot. And it changes the dynamic quite a bit. Yeah, there was a comment from one of the scouts, right, that I think sums up maybe why Danielson pulls ahead here.

Even from Benson, right, and I think, Corey, you could probably speak to this. The scouts said, Danielson has an easy path to being a top two-line center. He skates very well. He's smart. He competes. He has NHL-sized. People are sleeping on him. That, to me, feels like the differentiating factor here is that it's very easy to see a

player who fits Danielson's profile, having that top of the lineup path to justify. I'm not saying it's impossible or anything like that with Benson, but you have to be a little more exceptional in each of these ways as opposed to a Danielson. Yeah, I think that's fair. And Danielson is by no means a lock to be that kind of player. I think there are people in the league who think he might just be a third line center. But I mean, there's every player has risk. There's a risk, Benson doesn't play.

Yeah, for sure. There's a risk that he's a third line wink. There's, everybody has varying degrees of risk. What I think was interesting was Chris's point earlier about you can, you may only have one or two of those guys in your lineup. It's nice to have one of them. That was a conversation that I've had with people about the very early moments of the draft

when it comes to something like Michikov. And it's going to apply to Benson too. It's like, okay, Montreal has Nick Suzuki and Cole Cofield already. Arizona has Clayton Keller and Logan Cooley. You know, if they're faced with the Mitchcoff dilemma, can you have three of those guys in your top six that are of the smaller variety?

some would say no some would say maybe and maybe you just draft him and figure that problem out later which I think is a both choices I think are reasonable but yeah with Benson it's I like kind of like Chris said I mean I both of those players really I have no idea where Mitch Koss is going to go and I have no idea where Benson's going to go like if Benson went eight I wouldn't blink and if he went 16, I wouldn't blink. Like, it's, it's, um, just my history with the draft, you know, we thought Cole Caulfield could go top five. He goes 15.

People thought Marco Rossi would go top five. He goes nine. People thought Perfetti can go as high as like three or four or whatever. He goes 10. It's, though that happens not all the time, you know, Lucas Raymond went right where I thought he should go. But that does happen in the draft sometimes. All right.

We're going to take a quick break there and we're going to come back and wrap up with the mail pick. All right, into the mailbag. Austin E wants to know, Chris. Do you find it more difficult to scout a player like Bradley Nadeau, who is the top player in his league, but also plays on a ridiculously stacked team in a junior A league compared to a player in the CHL? How much more difficult is it? And do you generally get fewer views on players in the junior A league, the BCHL, the AJHL,

than you would kind of a league up? Yeah, I mean, you certainly get fewer live viewings for me. You know, like I'm not going to make a, can't really. We don't have the budgets of NHL scouts. So, you know, like, that's, that's things. So a lot of it, you know, was watching on the hockey TV feed this year. And, you know, thankfully, I have that, you know, so I was, you know, to watch some, some live games and, and things like that.

I mean, so just from a, from a pure logistical standpoint, it is a little bit more difficult. Obviously, you're dealing with, you know, the same thing. You're only seeing a player on video. You don't have, like, you know, the BCHL players were not at the World Junior A Challenge, challenge, you know, so there's a lot of different little kind of things that make it a little bit harder. And yes, I would say that when a player is at a level in a league where the team is just simply dominant and they're not really challenged, it can be difficult. But I mean, we do the same thing with players in high school. We're looking for the traits. What are the different things?

And, you know, he has an elite shot. He's really gifted offensive player always puts himself in the right spot. I mean, he might have one of the best one timers in the whole draft, you know, just like, And those are things that you can see. You know, he's not a big guy. He's headed to the University of Maine next year. You know, so you're kind of trying to get as much as you can on players like that. You know, and really, I mean, that's kind of the whole process. We're judging players at a variety of levels in a variety of situations, knowing the context and the historic, you know,

the historic production and all those different things helps. But at the end of the day, you're still just looking at the, you're looking for the physical traits. And so as not a huge player, but certainly very gifted in the offensive elements of the game, super good hands, you know, just a lot of different things that he does well. You know, I think that, you know, he's a guy that kind of was on the radar pretty quickly, stayed on the radar all year, has a chance to sneak into the first round. You know, he's a guy that I had as an early second. And I really think that, you know, some of those guys in the BCHL, they do. And this is true. Sometimes the players in the USHL as well is sometimes they do.

get discounted for the level that they play at, even though, like, the USHL has been a very difficult league to play in and score in. You know, the BCHL has not been a difficult place to score in, but it's still junior A hockey and among the best, you know, the most productive leagues in terms of NHL talent that, that, you know, provides it. So, yeah, so, I mean, it is, yes, it's, it's, it's difficult to evaluate all the different levels and to try to pick out the different traits. But, I mean, I think that he's a guy that, you know, you can see it. He has something there that you absolutely want to learn more about. Corey, Ryan F.

wants to know who the most likely teams to acquire additional first round draft picks this year are and how that could change their strategy. In general, do teams with multiple first rounders take more risks. I think we can confidently see the teams that are most likely to acquire more first are just the teams with the big names on the trade board, right? Like you're talking about maybe Ottawa, maybe, oh, who doesn't have any yet right now, maybe Winnipeg, you know, maybe Calgary, right, yeah. So those are probably the teams, unless you have anybody to add to that.

Let's talk about kind of this idea that can teams take more risks when you have multiple first rounders? Whether they can or not, or whether they should or not, as a whole other debate, I know that's what they think. I know the multiple first round pick mentality is something that is prevalent in the NHL. It's something that I personally disagree with. I don't understand why if you have multiple first round picks that frees you up to take more risks in the draft or to have different mentality. you had a first round pick last year. They're going to have a first round pick next year.

Let's say you're a team with a high first round pick and a low first round pick. So let's say you're at 10 and you pick again at 25. You're probably going to pick again at 40. So does the fact that you have 25 at 40 now really change your mentality? I just find it strange, but I know it's something that people in the league talk about. Well, maybe what it does is it kind of allows teams to do things that they kind of want to do anyway but are worried like, oh, if we come out of this with nothing, you know, as opposed to, you know, I think about like, kind of like Russian players and goalies as two examples of that. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes, and I do get that if you have very few draft picks. Like if you have like, let's say you're like Toronto who has like a first, a sixth and a seventh this year, something like that. And your entire hall is Michael Rabal, the goaltender and like two like, you know, long shots. I understand why you're looking at a draft saying, oh, we might come out of this with nothing. Yeah. But you have to, but that's mostly because you have no. graphics. You know, it's not because you made a bat pick at 28 or 27 or something like that. So I get the mentality. I get if there's some optics, I also do get from a management perspective that you have short timelines and you want and you're trying to get good players and you want to avoid

risks that are unnecessary. But maybe there's certain situations that allow you to take the risk better. I do get all that. But I think that can be lined up in ways other than you having multiple first round picks because you have a good team. It could be because you have a good farm system, you've had a lot of picks in previous years. I don't think it has to do anything in fact that you have two first round picks this year. Yeah. And I don't know that necessarily teams are, it's talking about risk. Sometimes you might see a little bit more of a need-based selection or things like that where it's like, hey, we, we, you know, look at the last couple of years where teams that had three draft, three first round draft picks. Some of them, often there's

going to be a big defenseman that's going to be taken. Maybe that was higher like, like, you know, thinking of Shakir Mukumadoulin a couple years ago, Sam Renzell last year with the Black Sock. Yeah, Maverick Lamaroo. Like teams are often going to say who's it. And they do take swings on players, but they're players that have often projectable traits that, you know, and if you don't have a second, you're like, we really want to get this guy in our system. So I think, yeah, it absolutely happens. Like it's not like it doesn't happen.

It does. But it's at the same time, I think the teams are still, you know, they're still. close to their boards in most of those situations. Having said, Buffalo last year with the first round picks Matt Savoy, Noah O'Sland, Yuri Coolidge. Yeah, exactly. Who are just all three, like three smaller

forwards, although Coolidge is a little bit thicker. Yeah. All right, Chris, this one's for you. Philip N wants to know, can you project the scenarios where Leo Carlson and Will Smith are true franchise centers? What changes would you need to see over their developmental years to say they're on track for that? What setbacks could you

foresee. Yeah, you know, I think that both probably need to improve a bit more in the defensive elements of the game. Certainly Will Smith a little bit more. I think he still competes well. I think he hustles. Like, I don't think there's a lot of, you know, but he obviously has to get physically stronger as well.

You know, he's a bit of a kind of a rangey and stringy player right now as he gets more solidly built. He'll be able to defend better. He'll be able to play better. I think both of them can still stand to improve their skating. That's going to be, you know, certainly for Leo Carlson at his frame, he's got the strength. He's got different things like that. Maybe you'd want to see him bring a little bit more edge to his game, but that's not necessarily

how he's ultimately going to play. You know, I think it's hard for me to say either comfortably projects as a franchise center. I mean, that's a big term. That's a, you know, I think that Leo Carlson has the better opportunity to do that, his size and his offensive ability. whereas Will Smith is probably more, I think he's more of a complimentary player in the right situation. He is absolutely going to be a play driver. I think he's going to be the guy that's going to be bringing the puck in over the blue line a lot.

He's going to be making plays. He's going to be setting up a lot of your offensive potential, a top power play guy, different things like that. But, you know, I think that it's hard to find those types of players. You hope you get them in that range where you're picking. but I think it's really, you know, I think you have to measure expectations about what those guys would be. But in the ideal situation, I think that the things that I mentioned are key things that they'll have to get better at. They both have the offensive game in spades. They're both very skilled.

You know, I think they have a high-end hockey sense in both cases. So they've got a lot of different tools that will help them be very strong play driving centers. All right, Corey, Dan B wants to know how far could Dimichry Simashev fall due to the Russian fact? if he does, do the wild pick him at 21, or would there be better forward options available? Doesn't sound like he's getting to 21. Yeah, again, with Russians you never know. I mean, I think people thought highly of Daniela Urov last year. He does at 24, which is where the wild took him last year.

I think people think a little bit higher, Simashev. I think Yorov was a combination of the Russian variable. And I think in the league, he wasn't as highly thought of as the public perception. was of him. I think with Simashev, it might be a little bit of the opposite in that second regard.

But I, like I said, I think with Russians, you can't rule anything out. I think anybody picking in the first round has to be prepared for those locomotive kids to be available to them because there's no guarantees

with Russians. And it doesn't matter what the hockey people say. It could be an ownership thing. I would have a hard time mocking him outside of the top 20. I think getting to 20 which is roughly around where they're picking is realistic.

I think anything beyond there, I think you start comparing him to like Oliver Bump or 10 or 10 or Maldick or ATN and it starts getting a little ridiculous. Yeah. Chris, Sam S wants to know, are there specific archetypes of players, whether it's power forwards, playmaking wingers, small puck moving defensemen, et cetera, that have a higher risk associated with picking in the top half of the first round? Yeah, it's probably those smaller puck moving defensemen. I mean, you know, you look at the different things, and we're going to have that discussion this year with Sandine Pelica, you know, and how dynamic is that player.

You know, I think we look at Adam Bowquist. And in recent years, he went right after Quinn Hughes. So you've got your Quinn Hughes. You've got your kale McCars. And those guys are, you know, sub six foot defensemen that had pretty special traits. So I think that the threshold for those players is much higher. They have to, they have to reach a certain level much bigger than that. I mean, there are only so many Eric Carlson's that come along in that range of the draft.

So, you know, I think that teams will feel more comfortable picking the power forwards, picking some of those, you know, a wing that has the high-end skill, whereas the defense, I think teams are going to be much more careful in how they structure, especially like if you are a team that has Quinn Hughes already, you're less likely to add Axel Sandine Pelica because you don't want, you know, those types of things. So I would say if we're if we're just talking about those particular archetypes, that's that. And then obviously, I think the one that that everybody would know is is the goaltender.

It's very difficult to pick a goaltender very high in the draft. You know, and teams are, you know, when you see Aiden Hill win the Stanley Cup for a team, you know, you're maybe a little less liable to use that draft capital on a guy that might be a number one. You know, so I think that that's another thing. But yeah, I think those smaller puck moving defensemen, we have them every single year now. I think that they are becoming more prevalent in the NHL to a certain degree. But again, those guys are particularly special players that have to be a high, high level for a team to consider taking them that high. I think it was kind of revealing when we taught this end in Pelica at the Combine. And we asked him who was comp in the league as he said he didn't have one.

Yeah. Which is maybe not, which is maybe not the end. answer he thought he was giving that turns of like how strong an answer he thought that was well here when he when i asked them that same question at the world junior or actually i think it was mike moriel asked him at the world juniors he said i've heard nils lunkwist a lot i wonder why he changed his mind on that well because in the first half of the year nils lunkfist looked like a good player and then he was a healthy scratch exactly so that's that's the interesting thing about it is that and those are the types of things that you you know that's what you have to consider is that there just aren't a lot of guys

that fit that mold and you have to be an especially high level player to make an impact at the NHL level. Right. I think, and, yeah, the degree, right? Because I think,

like, Scott Wheeler and I were having a debate about that. And I think he said, I forgot the stat that he mentioned, Max. He said that something like a couple dozen guys of a certain stature in the NHL. But he didn't say top four, though. Yeah.

He said, like, 30, 40, 50 of these guys that played NHL games. And I'm like, like, yeah, that sounds right.

But, like, I would guess like 30 of the, those guys probably spent time in the American League this year too, right? Yeah. Like that's, and that's the thing. There are a lot of those guys, a lot of those guys that aren't like you think like Joe Hicketts, other players that that are Ryan Murphy,

guys that became career AHL defensemen that are in that mold. And I think that that's why you're going to see a big pause on that. And we even have to just, I mean, I love small puck moving defensemen, but we also have to be realistic about how many there actually are that make an impact. Naturally, right? Like, just when you go to a game, I want everyone to, like, do this when they go to a game. Like, it will jump out at you that, like, the guy who's going to first draw your attention is probably one of those small puck moving defensemen. But that just being the first guy that stands out to you in the game does not dictate who the best prospect is, right?

Right. Right. Exactly. I also liked your point that you don't hear too many teams saying, well, we just have too many power forwards. Yeah. That's kind of a good lens to look at that through. Corey, Joe Falzon wants to know. What players in past drafts reminds you of Hansik,

Nate and Nate Danielson, who have perceived low ceilings but turned into stars? Yeah, I mean, I feel like I see those guys once a year. Yeah, I think there's a you, because, like, you can miss down on a guy's offense and you've missed up sometimes, too. You know, I think of Rupa Hintz, who was like this big, good skating,

some offense forward, who obviously has developed into an excellent player, just from the recent Stanley Cup champions. I don't think anybody foresaw Chandler-Stevenson being a 60-point player in the National Hockey League. Even at the highest end of the spectrum, I don't think, I love the player. I know Chris, but the player too, I don't think anybody would have said four years past this draft, Dylan Cousins is going to have a 70-point season. Right.

And again, I think both Chris and I love this player. I don't think either of us were saying that two years after his draft, Maddie Baneers is going to touch 60 points in the National Hockey League. I think you can keep going down on the list. I think that there's going to be plenty of those guys. It doesn't mean I'm thinking that those two are going to become that. In fact, I don't. But I think there's not just kind of why you just draft the traits

and hope the player develops. And sometimes you miss down it, but sometimes you miss up. And when you miss up, that's usually the more fun scenario. Yeah, and I think the moral of the story there is like when we talk about sealing, like we are not speaking definitively. It's our guess at the ceiling, right? The ceiling might be higher than we even perceive. Sealing is kind of an interesting discussion in the NHL discourse because I feel like

when I see ceiling discussed, especially in the public discourse, people usually think it's like the 5-9 guy with all the points in junior. But I don't think that's how actual NHL teams. perceived ceiling and that's definitely not how it's perceived in other sports. Like when you follow like baseball prospect covers, the pitcher who throws like 92 and hits his spots in college is not the ceiling guy. It's not the guy with production in college. It's that a guy who's six foot seven and throws fireballs and just can't hit his spots

yet. That's the ceiling guy. And in football, it's not the guy who plays in a shitty conference and gets a lot of sacks. It's the six foot eight twitchy defensive end who can run really fast. and has a good 40 and you're like, oh, let's, we can, you know, it's like how Trayvon Walker or Tyree Wilson was in these past two drafts. Like those are the guys and the upside guys. So like when I see, when I think of the NHL draft, like the people who think of upside,

it's not, you know, it's not Jane Perron. It's not Riley Height. It's not guys like that. It's the upside guys. People think in the league are Daniel Boot. It's guys like Quintin Musty. It's guys like Seamachev. Like those are the guys they look at and say, well, they put that together.

Like if you can just get. you know, a little offense at a simbyship. If you can get musty to be a little bit more engaged on a consistent basis, like you have a real player now. Yeah, absolutely. Last one goes to Chris. Patrick McConnell wants to know, what's the difference between guys like Mikhail Gulliyev, Axel Sandin Pelica and Eric Brancher,

this dovetails actually perfect, Chris, with your last answer. Will they become better players or similar? Oh, man. It's tough, I mean, it's tough to say. I mean, I think that, you know, Gulaev, you know, the skating, the skill, those are, those are some really outstanding traits, you know, but I think that there's still, the jury's still out. You know, he's a guy that I ended up having kind of in my very, like just fell just

outside of the first round level of my rankings, mainly because of, you know, the risk, the various risks that are associated with, you know, Russian undersized, you know, very skilled player, you know, and yeah, I'll say, I mean, like, I thought I was a big believer in Eric Brandstrom. I think, you know, guys like him and Boquist are guys that kind of take you a little bit. they're the kind of guys that force you to take a step back and say, what did I actually see, you know, and relative to what they can do in the NHL.

I think the thing about Sanding Pelica is I think he's a highly intelligent player. He, you know, had really nice season this year. And, you know, he got opportunities that a lot of players his age don't get. Like, there's just, there aren't, I don't think there's ever been a guy who didn't play in the under 18 world championship the year before that became his team's number one defenseman at the world juniors. That's a pretty special thing. But that also is something that you say, okay, well, that is, that is amazing. You also have to consider how many injuries there were and how many different, you know, the context of how. No, Evanson.

Yeah, no Edvinson. Like the guys that didn't come, that changed the dynamic for him. So that's part of why he was there. And, you know, so I still think like that, you know, Brandstrom is probably, you know, is that's kind of, you know, a guy that could be a tweener. and a, you know, a D, you know, like it's not, not there. So, you know, I think Gulliav might have a little bit more of the offense of potential and the skating ability that gives them more of a chance, whereas Sandine Pelika, I think his hockey sense is so high end that he could find a way to, to make an impact on a blue line,

but he's going to have to work to become a top four NHL defensemen. So, you know, I think that ultimately I have, you know, I have Sandy Pelica higher, largely because I think he's got a lot of the tools that he'll find. a way to make an impact. It might not be the offensive talent. But, I mean, you know, you look, hindsight's 2020. I think we all, you know, a lot of us liked Brandstrom. And now we are, you know, kind of backtracking on that.

And certainly you look at what he was traded away for. And Mark Stone just won a Stanley Cup. So, you know, I think it's, and we're still talking about, is he going to be okay? Is he going to be, is he going to make an NHL impact, you know, those kind of things. So I think those other guys have a little more work. But I want to, I want to give Corey a chance. jump into because I think it's it's a relevant point that you know it's it's a it's a lesson learned for me in terms of how I've evaluated those you know sub six foot defensemen and how special they

really have to be to make an angel impact just the one thing I was just say about guiyah if I think the one thing you kind of hear in the league and I think it's reasonable it is when was the last guy with his profile came over from Russia and had NHL success yeah the small puck moving even though he's a great skater like a really good skater actually because I think the issue was when you sign those Russian guys, they don't want to go to the American League. Right. You kind of have to like pencil into your NHL lineup. And how many 5-10-ish defensemen can you really sign and guarantee that to, give assurances

to that they are going to be a part of your NHL organization? It doesn't mean they all will. Like Federer Svetskov, Yars Lavaskrov and like Nashville are going to the American League. Like that's nothing wrong with that. And I think Russians are willing to do that. But I think that is a hesitancy with signing Russians in general is that. issue and it's like okay like how good is he really going to need to be and to like you're like craving to put him into your top four like it's it's uh you know in it as opposed to just letting

you know I'm supposed to like saying hey we'll come over and give you a chance and he's like oh well then I'll just stay in Olmsk yeah that's probably the mentality a lot of these kids happens me that's what he has I don't want to speak at a term but I think that that is a hesitation with that player type and I like I can't even remember the last time that player type came out of Russia, to be quite honest. Yeah, I can't either. I mean, like, yeah, I really can't because, yeah, and that's a really good point, Corey. On the thing, but we, I was talking about that with somebody at the combine before I was, it was just the fact that, you know, that the Russian players, the, a lot of the lack of willingness to go to the AHA. I mean, we've now seen Vite Kravs

off as going back to the KHL for, you know, the umpteat time, it feels like, you know, so it is something that teams are going to consider and why it'll probably impact Gullayev's opportunity to come over. But you never know. Every player's different and there's an opportunity there. We just saw Artem Duda, who's, you know, he's coming over to North America, allegedly. He just committed to the University of Maine. I have no idea how that eligibility is going to work since he played in KHL last year. But, but like, you know, if you can get them to North America, if you can get them into your development, you know, then maybe, but a lot of teams do have doubts that they're going to be able to do that effectively. So, yeah, so it is hard to project guys like him because of that reason. a really good point by Corey there.

Great stuff, guys. That's going to do it for us today. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. You can follow us on YouTube at YouTube.com at the athletic hockey show. You can also catch more at Chris over at Flow Hockey and on his podcast, Talkin Hockey Sense. 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.

We'll talk to you soon.