The Athletic Hockey Show - U23 rankings: a trio of Habs ordered incorrectly?

Episode Date: September 3, 2025

As the calendar turns to September, with the start of the NHL season about a month away, Corey’s 2025 under-23 NHL player rankings have officially been released. On today’s episode, the guys break down the list in detail, starting at the top with names like Macklin Celebrini and Connor Bedard. Plus, a debate about the proper placement for Canadiens Juraj Slafkovsky, Ivan Demidov, and Lane Hutson, surprises in the defenseman ranks, and much more. We want to hear from you! Please fill out our listener survey: https://forms.gle/CDbF51vAPngm2ZYS6Got a question? Ask it here: t.co/fYieuQEg14Hosts: Max Bultman and Corey PronmanWith: Scott Wheeler and FloHockey’s Chris PetersExecutive Producer: Chris FlanneryProducer: Chris Flannery Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Hey, everybody, Max Boltman here alongside the athletics, Corey Promen, Scott Wheeler, and Flow Hockey's Chris Peters for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. And it's a fun one, guys. I think this is one of our most fun episodes that we do all year. Corey's under 23 player rankings are now out. You'd seen the pipeline rollout over the last week. Now we got the player rankings. And that means we get to get at Corey a little bit.

with some of our questions about his list. Let's start at the very top, though, Corey, because one of the most interesting things we can say about this list is how much you putting Celebrini at number one over Connor Bedard does not feel controversial, which a year ago would not have been the case. Well, I haven't asked fans in Chicago how they felt about that particularly. I'm sure we could always bring them on to see how much controversy there is.

But when we did a pre-show survey, I don't think, I didn't even sense like there was any angst among this group, right? That that was something you guys were like, I don't know, maybe. It kind of feels like we all kind of universally feel Celebrini's the best young player in hockey right now. Yeah, it was kind of funny.

We were going around and we were just kind of like, yeah, no, I got nothing to say there. And honestly, I think that even if you did poll Chicago scouts, or Chicago fans, you would probably see a little bit more of like, uh-oh, like there is, I think there's at least that feeling of trepidation. that that is that you and we are correct and that we all feel the same way about that. I mean, you look at the ceiling of Bedard and what the potential is of him becoming a,

you know, a perennial 50 goal score and different things like that. You know, we're still feeling very far away from that player at this point, whereas Celebrini walks in and suddenly you've got one of the better two-way centers at his age. And then soon, I think, will be one of the better two-way centers in the game period as we move forward. He, you know, he's a year younger than Baderd, but just going around here, what do you think? Just like a quick number off everybody's head, percentage chance that Badaard makes team Canada in February.

Five? Yeah, five, under 10%. Two percent chance. Percentage chance, Celebrini makes team Canada. Ten? Fifteen. I was going to say one in five, so 20. A couple of injuries, and he could be in the mix.

and there's going to be injuries. He said he's a year younger, too, which I think kind of speaks volumes there a little bit. Yeah. Obviously, I think the biggest difference there is that Celebrini, I think you can envision like killing penalties and being like a fourth line energy guy on Team Canada. The dog is on there.

He's probably like a 13 forward power play specialist, kind of like how he was at the World Championships two years ago. And this is not really about, you know, we're talking about best careers and stuff like that, but it's just more talking to the lines of just how impressive of Celebrini was in the NHL last season. Well, and to that point, right? Like, I noticed when I watched Celebrini, I noticed him off the puck a ton.

Like, I consistently noticed him going into battles, coming up with pucks out of those battles against players that are stars in this league already. Bidar, whenever I've watched him, you know, he can still do some, make some magic out there. But you are mainly noticing him on scoring type plays. And when he didn't outscore Celebrini by a wide margin, that gives Celebrini like a really, to me, clear edge. All right, let's go to the number two thing on your list that I think is very interesting right after these guys. It's the top of the next tier.

And we're talking about a couple of centers who went right behind Connor Bedard. You have Leo Carlson over Adam Fantilli, Corey. I want to hear from Scott first. What do you think about that at this stage? Because these two have kind of jockeyed since the draft, really. Well, certainly Adam Fantilly had a better season a year ago. Like, Adam Fantilly scored 31 goals in the league last year and took a big step and was, one of the very best young players in the league last year,

and I still think we're waiting to see that consistently from Leo. I would, if I were ranking them, I would slot Adam Fantilli ahead of Leo Carlson, but I will say I'm in the midst of doing my prospect tiers project, which is kind of a follow-up to Corey's in a little bit of a way where I pull NHL scouts. And the one, probably the player that people vouched for the most in terms of slotting Leo Carlson in a really, really high tier in that,

or slotting a player in a really, really high tier in that was Leo Carlson. Like, NHL scouts feel the same way that Corey does, that Leo Carlson is at least on par with Adam Fantilli, if not ahead of Adam Fantilli for them. They still really believe that he's a better, more natural playmaker, and you go down the list that he's got that cerebral quality that Adam Fantilly maybe lacks. I think Adam, and just the power that he plays with,

the quick twitch, the skating, the presence that he plays with, I think he's just going to be so much for teams to handle. And I haven't seen that kind of sort of presence and imposition from a player like Leo Carlson. But I can understand this one from Corey's point of view in terms of just the belief out there that exists that Leo's going to pop at some point here with his playmaking and his ability to read the game. And that's never really been Fantilli's strength. He's always been more of an instinctual sort of just go-getter type of player. and there's probably in a case to be made as to which type of player you want at the top of your lineup. I think the idea of Adam Fintilly and Caden Lindstrom as your 1-2 down the middle is really appetizing.

But the idea of Caden Lindstrom and Leo Carlson down the middle would be as well, right? Well, the one thing I would say to this too, in terms of how close it is, I think when you look at Corey's evals as well and you say, okay, well, if, you know, I think hockey sense is probably, Corey, would you say it came down to that as a separating factor between. the two players. Not the only thing, but that's definitely the thing that Carlson has over Fantilli. I mean, I thought Scott articulated the arguments perfectly in terms of, I mean, they're basically neck and neck. I'm not offended if you went the other way. That would be the thing that Carlson has over Fantilly.

Yeah, and I would say that in the other way, I think the way that Fantilly plays is a little more, you know, certainly it pops more in terms of the compete level, the different things that he does. The power, as Scott mentioned, are our key. things. I do, I prefer, you know, his skating a bit as well. That's even probably, you know, not, it wouldn't be a huge, a huge thing there. But I do think that, you know, in terms of what we saw from Fantilli last season, I do think that that's indicative of where he's going. I still don't really have a great feel for where Leo Carlson is going. I think that there is absolutely the upside is there.

I don't know if he's figured out what he's supposed to be as an NHL player yet and what his identity is as a player, whereas I think Adam Fantilli has always known that and didn't, you know, didn't pretend to be the cerebral, you know, hockey player. He was much more in your face. So that's the thing that I'm just still curious about is, I agree that the hockey sense is a, is a separating factor between the two, but I just, I haven't yet watched the game of Leo Carlson coming away, feeling like I had a tremendous sense of what ultimately he was going to be. I know he has just aged out, but just strictly out of curiosity, where would you have had Quinton Byfield, give or take, Corey? You'd be three out of three for those guys.

Yeah, I think so too. I think what my question would come down to on this one, Corey, is that throughout this rankings, then we'll probably talk about this when we get to the defenseman. I know you place a certain emphasis on how these players are going to translate to playoff hockey. And I think with Fantilli, like those traits that Chris talked about, those are like loud playoff style traits. And certainly I don't think Carlson's soft or anything like that. that he's obviously got plenty of size. I think he will play in the hard areas of the ice.

But I just think it pops more in Fantilli's profile. And given that it is close, we're talking about guys three and four in the same tier on your list. Is that still just like a matter of projection where you think, you know, in those kind of games, Leo, it's coming for Leo when he's 25, 26? Or how do you kind of square that, I guess? I still think Leo's going to be a really impactful playoff style player. I know he doesn't have the physicality that Fantelli does, but this is like a 6-3 center who can move who is not physical,

but he can get to the interior parts of the ice to create offense. Like I think he's going to be more than fine in the playoffs, and I think it's just as he continues to develop and gain strength. I just think his talent is so off the charts with his

skill, as hockey sets, to go with the size, to go with good enough feet, even if it's not like Fantilli, quick twitch. I just think this guy. the limit for this player. All right, let's stick with the head-to-head theme here and move to another set of prospects. These two not quite in the same vein, right?

They're not the consecutive number one picks like Celebrity and Bedard. They're not, you know, back-to-back in the same class like Fantilian Carlson. But Matveh, Mavvy and Ivan Demadov have kind of been linked, Corey, as kind of the two premier Russian wingerers in consecutive drafts. And you've got Mitchkov a couple spots ahead of Demadov, still within the same tier. But how did you kind of go about comparing these two when, especially we got, you know, such a little glimpse of Demadov at the end of the year? Well, they're close, for one.

Again, there are a couple spots ahead. They're in the same tier. There's obviously some distinctions in how they play. Mitch Koff's got, I think, just a smarter, more creative player, which is not taking away from Demadoff, who has off-the-charts creativity. Just Mitch Kov's one of the five, the six smartest players up front that I've seen in terms of his offensive instincts and creativity. Demodob's bigger, harder.

Those are some quite frankly, Michkov did it in the NHL this year. I think when we were watching him coming up in the KHL, we're like, okay, 5-9, 510 winger, not super fast, not super physical. How does this translate?

And it translated. Is it good at translate into 100 point years or 90-point years or whatever? Time will tell. But he showed that he can play the unique way he plays and it worked in the NHL. And that's very,

valuable information to have. And we'll see how Demadov does in his first year. You know, I love the player. I think he's super skilled and super competitive. And if I think he's a below average skater, and that's kind of the same profile I had on like Alexei Lefrenier, for example. And I think Demadov's going to be much better than that. But until you get it done in the NHL, that's, at the end of the day,

that's what matters, right? We kind of projecting and how things are going to translate and what kind of player we want. But at the end of day, if a guy does in the NHL, that is the most valuable information we have. So that, I don't know, like I said, we did a pre-show survey as well. I don't think I got much pushback on this, even though I know I'm surrounded by major Demadoff fans. Yeah. And I think that's super fair.

Like basically, you know, it comes down to for me the same, for the same reason that you did. I just think that in terms of the overall creativity, the uniqueness of the hockey sense of Matt Vey Michkov, even in the face of a really outstanding player like Demadov as well. I just think that that is the one thing that could potentially carry him into being, you know, a special tier player over time. You know, and maybe they both end up in that same way. And like, I think it's important to note that while there is a maybe a larger perceived gap in numbers, I think we would all agree that there is not a lot of separation between the two players. No.

You're kind of splitting hairs at that point, even though it might look different when you've got one player at six and another at 10, you know, the gap really isn't. that big in the end. The way I think about it is last year, Travis Kinechnie and Matt Veychkne were basically neck and neck in terms of who the top dog offensively was on that team right away. And I would expect, in fact, I believe that Matt Veychkhov is going to separate this season almost immediately from Travis Keneckney. I don't know that two years from now Ivan Demadov has separated from Nick Suzuki or your Islafkofsky or Cole Caulfield.

And certainly I don't know, we don't know that in year one, he's going to be an equal with some of those guys in the way that Michikov was. Now, I know Michikov was a healthy scratch a couple of times and didn't have it every night, but you tuned in last year to watch that Philadelphia team, and their two most talented offensive players were pretty clear. I'm not sure that two seasons from now that you're going to see him separate from a Nick Suzuki in the way that I truly believe that Michikov is going to separate from I'm Travis Kinekney this year.

All right, we're back. And before we get back to the show, listeners, we want to hear from you. Check out the link in the description to give us your feedback on the show, what content you've enjoyed the most, what you might like us to do differently next season, either on this show or the other days of the athletic hockey show. We really appreciate it. And guys, when we went into the break, we were talking about Ivan Damedov. And I want to pick right back up there with Montreal, because Corey, we talked about it a little

bit when we did the pipeline team ranking podcast. But the order that you have the top Canadians guys here, I think is going to be an interesting one to discuss. And I want to start with Scott here on what he thinks of this. Uri Slavkovsky's at seven, a few spots ahead of Demeadov at 10, and then a decent little gap down to Lane Hudson. Hudson's still very high up there, right? He's right up there with Beckett Seneca and Anton Selleev and Carter Yakumchuk and Zane Perak, all D. D. He's not super far down this list, but he is behind Slavkovsky and Damedov by a decent margin. I'm just curious what your first take on that is.

that to me more than the more than the demidov-mitzkov debate that was what sort of struck me was sort of immediately scrolling through the list and those three montreal guys are such talked about names and such big names that i was curious to see where they would land i would have it probably the inverse i would have demmitz certainly i would have slavkovsky three and i would have demidov and hudson both ahead of him uh but i i certainly don't see a gap between where demadov and slavkovsky are in the top ten and where hudson's is at 34. Like, that's just not indicative of, of the way that I've read Lane Hudson over the last little bit. And I think I counted the defenseman. Hudson was 10th, I think, amongst the U23 defenseman here, coming off of a calder, coming off of not just a calder, but a historic offensive season in the NHL for a rookie defenseman that age. I think we're, I don't think we're going to get to Kail McCar and Quinn Hughes in terms of the conversation about Lane, because I don't think he's ever going to have that level of defense. But I think he's going to be a pretty singular offensive talent in the league. And I don't think there are 33 players who are U23

who fit that sort of description or are going to have that kind of a defining quality in the league where they are one of one or one of two or one of three as players. So the Hudson one was the one that I had a bit of a tough time. But I'm also, I'm a little surprised at how high Corey is on Slavkowski. Slafkoski's had two 50-point seasons in the NHL and been a very good player. he has also played with very good players and very good line mates, especially last year when he basically played exclusively on that top line. And I still haven't seen, like I haven't seen Rantanin or that sort of premier power winger in the

NHL out of Slavkovsky yet. So that, less Demodov, but more of the Slavkovsky-Hudson rankings sort of caught my eye. In fairness, I think Rantan was like a 40-point player at the age that Slavkovsky was last year. So statistically, he would be a little bit ahead of where even Miko's. I'm not saying he's renting either. I'm just saying like Slefkowski's so young at 21 that like the projection I think can still do a lot of work on on your eye.

Chris, what was your first take on how the three Montreal guys were ordered? Yeah, you know, I was a little surprised at Slefkofsky's, you know, we've had plenty of discussions about Slavkovsky going dating back to his draft year. and I've never been one to be particularly high on, on him relative to some of the other other guys. But, you know, I mean, I think to your point, Max, about the, you know, I think the two 50 point seasons as a 20 years old or younger is pretty significant. I think it's a good sign of where things are going.

I just, to me, I feel like he's closer, getting closer to his ceiling than, you know, a guy like Demadov, who I feel like has a bit of a higher overall ceiling. The question is, Is Slavkovsky going to become that power guy? Is he going to be one of those guys that that is able to impact the game in a variety of different ways? I haven't necessarily seen that yet from him. But I do think that he's at least trending decently well.

Obviously, I've been very high on Lane Hudson. And I think that I probably would have had Lane second. And I agree with Scott. I probably would have had Slavkovsky among the Canadians guys third. But really, that's the. but I probably would have had Demadov, then Hudson, and, you know, but really, again, I don't think it's a huge gap.

I'm not saying like, you know, I think when we make these lists and we separate these players, like, you know, I think the good news if you're a Montreal Canadiens fan is you have all three of them. Like, I mean, that's insane, you know, to have this level of future pieces when you also combine them with relatively younger guys in Suzuki and Caulfield.

and kind of see where things are going. So don't, you know, don't get too all uptight Habs fans. This is still a very good thing. It's a great system, no doubt. It's just so when Corey and I did those pipeline episodes, Scott, one of the things I said is I can understand Slyfkowski at top that list, especially relative to Hudson, because I look at where the projection goes on like a 6-3 guy with potentially like point per game offense,

which is what I think Slavkovsky would be. I'm not saying he's a hundred point guy like Ranton, But if he's an 80 point guy with that size, with that level of physicality and the things he can do there, that to me is harder to find than a really, really good offensive defenseman. And that's great. I think Hudson is a really, really good offensive defenseman. But it sounds like you disagree with that. I think Hudson is a level above a really, really good offensive defenseman. So the way I would characterize it is I think about your ice Slavkovsky as J.T. Miller, Karil Marchenko. that sort of 70 point winger, I think about Hudson as a transcendent offensive defensemen in the league. That isn't to say that he's the all-round impact of a kale McCar or Quinn Hughes or a Charlie McAvoy or the true top five, top 10 defensemen in the league. But I think could he have a season akin to what Eric Carlson had over the course of his career once or twice? Could Lane Hudson put up 80 or 90 points in a season over the course of his career?

I think that is absolutely within the realm of possibility for Lane Hudson based off of the impact that he made offensively in the NHL last year. And he's already on top of that playing 25 minutes a night. And if we're going to couch in defensive or improvement for players like your Islafkowski to get from 50 to 70, I think you also have to couch in at least a little defensive improvement in Lane Hudson as well. And then suddenly I think you're talking about after the MVP caliber types, I think you're talking about one of the premier offensive defensemen in the league. What would the offensive gap have to be, like, between Hudson and Slavkovsky, what would the offensive gap have to be to where you would prefer Hudson to Slavkovsky?

Because if Hudson puts up the same number of points as Slavkovsky, I'd rather have Slavkovsky for all those physical elements that I talked about. What would the gap have to be? I still think it's much harder, even if the gap is close, I still think it's much harder to find a defensemen to run your PP1 and coordinate much of your offense and play 25 minutes a night than it is to find a 17, 18, 19 minute a night winger who is one of the better power forwards in the league. Well, if I, like, read you this, like, I don't want to spend too much time, but like, so

McCar Werenstki were putting in a class of their own. Would you rather have, sorry, McCar Hughes were put in a class of their own. Werenski, Dahlene, Bouchard, Headman, Morrissey. Fox talked about Carlson. I think he's going to age out. Thomas Harley, Shane Gossespaer. I don't think Gossisbeer is going to put up quite the offense that Hudson is.

So maybe that's the line. But that's a solid 10 guys already there. And that's before we get to the guys who I think fit them more like complete your McAvoy's, your Sandersonersens, your Haskinens, maybe your Harleys. I just don't think it's as rare as we're building it up to be. But I think you could go on the other side of the token, you could go Adam Fantilli, Mark Schifley, J.T. Miller, Matthew Nyes. Like, there are tons of very good power forwards in the league.

And would you rather one of those high-end defensemen who's contributing for almost half of the minutes that are in a 60-minute game and driving your offense on the power play? Or would you rather that really good power forward winger, right? And I think, like, you're taking all those players that you listed other than Gostisbury. you're also probably taking them over J.T. Miller, over Mark Schifley. So I think you're counting on your eyes, Slavkovsky to be better, better than those guys. I think a difficulty with projecting a guy like Hudson is, you know, when you get a 6-1, 6-2 defense, when we start projecting Carson Carroll's and Dexon Rudolph and Keaton Verhoff into the NHL, we could go onto an NHL database and enter in some defense names and find 30,

guys and we feel like, oh, he could be one of these 30 guys. We'll just have to pick whichever one jumps out at us the most. When you start, probably about 5-9, 5-10 defensemen, the list is like three guys in the league. And you may not find a perfect analogy to one of those three guys. Because I don't think Lane Hudson is Quinn Hughes, but he is, he's not Jared Spurgeon. He's not Sammy Gerard. He's a different player. So I guess, like, almost over history, Scott, go back, not even in the league now, go back

five, 10, 15 years, who's a player that you think, this is what you think he's going to be closest to when it's all said and done? There isn't one. And I think when those guys come along, you have to recognize that he is different. And that even if there isn't a track record of success for that type of player, that he isn't like Samuel, Girard and Olin Zellweger and Axel Sandine Pelica, like he just isn't those guys. He isn't the name I thought of has been out of all. Like, does Adam Fox offend you? He won a Norris. No, not at all.

Not at all. Part B of the question is, how good is Adam Fox? I still think better than the non-rantonan power forwards in the league in terms of impact on a game. Is he a top 10 defensemen in the league? Yes. No way. No. He has finished top five in Norris voting in four of the last five seasons and won in Norris trophy.

Yeah, because the people just vote based on points. they don't actually know whether they don't actually vote whether they're actually good all-around players or not. I think Adam Fox is comfortably one of the 10 best defensemen in the league. You're going to make Team USA this summer? I mean this winter, sorry? Yes. Yes, he will. Despite the way that things went last year, yes.

His head coach is the head coach of that team, and Adam's going to have a massive fall, and I'm pretty confident he'll make that team. Rangers fan, producer Flannery here, is Adam Fox a top 10 defense in the NHL? Of course. So this is interesting, though, because I think to Scott's point, getting back to the Hudson discussion, because the whole, we could go down on Adam Fox rabbit hole if you guys want. They could do the whole episode on it. Yeah. Yeah.

But to bring it back to Hudson, I do think that there is some element that we have to allow player, like in our evaluations, we have to allow for players to be somewhat singular, somewhat unprecedented. he's not, you know, he isn't completely without precedent. I mean, I think that there are certainly going to be some defensemen that, you know, you can look at the various players that impacted the game offensively the way that he does. But there really haven't been a lot of players, I feel that play quite like him. Like when people always used to ask me who I would compare him to, and I was like, I don't have a defenseman to compare him to. I think he's Johnny Goodrow and as a defenseman, basically.

Like, that's kind of how I've always looked at him, is that he, He's got, you know, high-end puck skills. He's got all these different things. He's got deception. And he plays the game differently. And the question is not about, you know, I think as we kind of move through, yes, we know how playoff hockey looks. And we will have to see exactly how this game translates to that. But I also think that are we completely positive that the, that the NHL game of today is going to look like the NHL game, you know, like will it, will it start moving?

and shifting a little bit more towards this kind of more positionless, all over the place kind of hockey where it's more offensive. If it works, I mean, I think if that's the thing, is like, Glenn Hudson could very well be a trend setter in that regard, which is where I see some of the argument from Scott saying, like, hey, like, are we so married to the lack of precedent and the probability being lower that Hudson matriculates into, being one of the 10 best defensemen in the NHL?

Or is there actually something that we can, do we have to leave that room that, you know, he's going to be special? I don't even think Hudson has to be one of the 10 best defensemen in the NHL if Slavkovsky doesn't become one of the five best, five or 10 best wingers in the NHL. Like, ultimately you're taking the defenseman over the winger. I was going to go on a rabbit hole there. I was going to argue like Fox wasn't like a top 15 defenseman.

Like I was going to keep going, but then, but we stopped there right there. Then we can piss off two massive fan bases in one episode. Let's stick on the defenseman. We're doing the survey too, right? That's right. I know what we're going to hear about. Let's stick on the defenseman topic. And let's go to the very top of the list here, Corey, because the, the defenseman in order here are number one,

Luke Hughes at five, Zeev Bouillon at eight. And then Matthew Schaefer is at number nine. Those are your top tier of defensemen. Scott, any surprises there, especially after all the buzz around the guy who just went number one overall in the draft two months ago? No, no surprise. I think we have three of the biggest Zeev-Boyim believers and maybe four if we include you, Max, on this podcast. Like, we all think the world of Zeev and have been, I think, to a T, he's never been a player that we've really disagreed on. So Zeev there didn't surprise me.

I think to the average fan, there might be the assumption that Matthew Schaefer is just the default number 1D prospect in the sport because he just went first overall and he's got all of this runway and this incredible skating ability. But Zeev didn't surprise me. I would definitely have Schaefer over Hughes. Corey's always been very high on Hughes. I think there are some limitation in Hughes's game that I think he's going to need to iron out to be a truly top of the NHL level defenseman. and I think Schaefer and Zeeve are capable of becoming that caliber of defensemen. And I just have never been fully convinced by Luke Hughes's game, despite the skating as well and the length and all of it.

So I would probably take issue with Hughes, but certainly not with Zeev. I think Zeev and Schaefer are in the same ballpark. I feel the same. Chris, do you want to stand up for Luke Hughes here or should we let Corey do it? I will let Corey do it because it is his list, but I actually, I'm on Corey's side. So I will allow him to defend his position with my full-throated support.

Who's a better skater, Hughes, or Schaefer? Schaefer all day. I think it's even. They're both elite skaters. Give me a push. I think Schaefer is pretty singular in terms of the mobility. I mean, Luke Hughes has to be one of the top five, six skaters in the NHL. But they're both elite skaters.

You're saying Hughes is clearly better? No, I don't think it's clear better, but I just think it's at best at the push. I might even lean towards Hughes, quite frankly. But who, so part of your case for the skating with Hughes is that, like, because of the skating and the size, it's going to allow him to kind of unlock this level of defense that we haven't really seen from him yet. But we have seen it from Schaefer, and he's 18. In junior hockey, mind you.

But we didn't see that from Luke in junior hockey. I saw Luke at the NTDP. He wasn't defending with us. Oh, I think Schaefer's going to be a better defender than Luke Hughes's, but before we start saying, like, Luke Hughes' defenses and elite, let's see. Yeah. I get it. I get it. I get what you're trying to say.

I think offensively, I mean, skill, hockey sense-wise, is there a gap there? I think Schaefer has a higher hockey sense. Hughes would have a higher skill level for me. I think I'm with that, yeah. So we think they're going to have similar level of offense, probably when it's all said and done. Maybe like first power play, but now you'll lead first power play, type of guys. Yeah, 50 to 60 point kind of defenseman. Hughes has maybe a little bit of length

on Schaefer, but they're basically about the same height. But I think Schaefer uses it more defensively. Yeah. Pete's harder. That's where I was going to go with that. Like, I think Hughes might have a little bit more pure natural like scoring ability. Like he's just a little bit, I think was just a little bit more aggressive, a little bit better with the, just creates offense, I think, a little bit more consistently. Like, again, they're in the same tier for me. Yeah. Schaefer barely played hockey last year. Luke Hughes has been a highly productive player in the NHL level. So, look, there's some distinctions there for me. But I guess I would push back on saying it's like, I thought it's a conversation. I feel like we're splitting hairs here a little bit,

at least that's how I feel having this just conversation just now. And that's what we do with the top of these lists. Let's, let's transition it to another subset of defensemen, that being the way you order the guys from the 2024 defense class, which is one of the most interesting blue line crops. It certainly in my time covering. the NHL, just in the volume and caliber of defensemen, right? So now, I don't know, I think you still had Levshanov one at the time of the draft, but you had Zeev really high. So Zeev supplanting Levshanov, not like a huge surprise, not a huge storyline. I think it's more interesting that Sam Dickinson has elevated himself above Levshanov and that Carter Yakumchuk has kind of fallen back

to the pack in that group. Yeah, I mean, Dickinson was just outstanding last year. I think when you watched Sam Dickinson in his draft year. There were hockey sense questions, and I think there are still some minor hockey sense questions with Dickinson. But I think it's less in his draft year, you're like, holy hell, this guy makes one or two major mistakes every game. Can he move a puck in the NHL? Can you trust him to now?

Like, yeah, he makes one or two big mistakes, but he plays 35 minutes a night, so just by a matter of odds, that's going to happen at some point. And, like, he seems to be able to move the puck confidently enough, and make enough plays and not hurt his team on enough of a basis to go with the fantastic talent level and his competitiveness that you're like, geez, this guy's going to play a ton of minutes in the NHL. You think of like, like, almost like a Noah Hannifin plus type of profile kind of thing.

Like, I think that's what you're kind of hoping for with Dickinson. And, you know, I kind of expect him to potentially push to be on the sharks right away this year. Max, the one thing that you did say, yeah, was, you know, seeing, you know, surprisingly, Matt Yakim Chuck falling to the back of the pack. Yep. I mean, I could have shown you a draft list where that was the case that same year. Or two.

All right. Well, we'll leave it right there for segment two. Take a quick break and we'll come back with a few individuals that we want to all ask Corey about. All right, we're back. And we're into the, we've already had a little bit of tension here, frankly. We've had some good back and forth. But now we're going to turn up a notch and we're going to get really drilling down on individual players. We've done some head-to-head debates.

We've done some themes. But we've each got a bone or two to pick with Corey. Scott, why don't you take the first? Lane Hudson's off the table. We talked about him enough. Yeah. Who's your next one? The first name when I was scrolling through it, the very first name, I mean, Hudson, I guess,

appeared at 34, but the very next name that sort of wept out at me was Frank Nasar. I know Corey's typically been lower on Nasar over the years. But if Frank looks like the, if Frank looks like the, player that we saw at men's worlds and in the last 15 or so games of the season with the Blackhawks, if he looks like that player for, let's say, 70 of 82 games this year and is it consistently that player more nights than not, then we're not talking about a player who belongs in the 40s on a U-23 list. He's obviously already been paid in the NHL now, which can't be said for now, pretty unique

contract with just 50-something games. but there's, I think there's a lot of juice in Frank. I think he's going to be a top, whether he's a center or a winger, he's a top six player in the league for the next long while. And I think he has a chance based off of what we saw. Like I thought he looked every as, everybody's impactful as Clayton Keller for example. I thought he was one of their very best players at men's worlds.

And that really opened my eyes, especially after he was whatever it was, the way he finished the year 12 points in 12 games or whatever it was to close it out with the Blackcocks. I think Frank has a chance, again, not a ton of precedent with the 5-9, 510 types, but I think he has the chance to be a high-end top-six type talent in the league. And there are just guys ahead of him on Corey's list that I don't think have a chance to do that. And to the point that we talked about with Michikov earlier, we've seen it with Nazar.

We haven't seen it over a full season, but we have seen 20 or so excellent hockey games in the NHL plus a men's worlds where he quickly, quickly, quickly rose up that lineup and was extremely productive. Well, he did, I think, at least three times in that analysis, you mentioned the sample size in the NHL, and that's a variable for me in that I didn't really think coming up

when I was watching him as amateur, that he had like high, high end offense. I was like a speed and energy base guy and then absolutely fantastic year between the American League, the NHL, the Worlds. He had a huge year, but you mentioned a small sample of the NHL and gets this tremendous contract from Chicago. And I agree with you.

I think he's going to be a top six center in the league. But then you go back, you're like, well, what if Anaheim had paid Minchikov last summer? What if Buffalo had paid Jack Quinn based on his summer? I was thinking of one or two other names of guys that had, I think of Simon Nemitz getting paid right after his first. whatever 20 games in New Jersey or something like that. Like there's some I think you want to get a little bit more data.

With Mitch Koff, it wasn't as much as like yeah, he did in the NHL but he'd been doing it at a high level for so long. Is this game going to translate it? He plays a full year in the NHL and that's, to me, it's more significant. Luke Hughes has played several years in the NHL. You know, this guy has played a month

like there's a, and on a bad team where they were kind of handing out ice time like candy. So like I think that's, you know, a little bit of a different there. I just would want to be see it a little longer of a sample, but to your point, like if he even comes close to replicating what he did this year

and he backs it up in the NHL, yeah, he's going to be right in the top tiers, I think. To that point, you've got Victor Eklend and Logan Stankov and two 5-8 to 511 wingers, 10 spots ahead of Frank

Nazar on your list. Yeah, well, Stanky's, you know, done in pro hockey for quite a few years now and he's had a history of high-end offense. And Eklund's tremendous skater, like really high-end skater, who has been very productive versus men at a young age and been a guy who's always rated really highly. And like I said, the issue with me with Nazar isn't that he was really,

wasn't really, really good this year, is that I've never really been blown away by his hockey sense or his creativity or his playmaking to the point where I think, like, as a 5-10 guy, he's going to be a, like a top line player. That's just, you know, I need more information to suggest that he's actually this player. That would be my reservation. I'm guessing that's not the case for you. It's not the case for Chicago.

Hence where he went in the draft for them. He did have 24 points in 21 HL games as well. Yes, I just, I said his only other pro hockey. I said the American League started the very first thing I said. All right. Let's go to another guy. This one's from me. Matthew, you have Matthew and I's really high, right?

So you clearly like the player. He's number 35 on your list. but he's one spot ahead of Victor Eklund. I think he should be at least ahead of William Eklund, which is seven, eight spots up the list. And I can make a case that he should maybe be a couple spots higher than that, at least maybe above like an O in power. Again, like he scored close to 30 goals, 60 points, like for a guy who has as many elements

as he does, same argument really is Slavkovsky. I just think this is such a hard player to find. Skating would be the difference there, right? like Slavkosky is big and fast whereas I think with Nye's like his feet to me are not going to drive even strength play to the way Slavkosky is going to

the competitiveness though to your point and the offense he's shown is pretty damn significant and maybe I'm underrating how much offense I think Nause is going to have going forward I feel like obviously there's a ton of talent there in Toronto and I hate making the look who he plays with argument because I feel like

like he mentioned Scott said out with Salkowski's like well he played a good player so why didn't Cole Coughfield play is a good player. Maybe Slavkovsky made Cofield. And I don't think it's the case. I think everybody carries each other kind of thing to an extent. But I feel like obviously with Toronto, that power play. It's just, you know, a talent there.

So much offense there is a minor variable. But so maybe I'm misreading how much hockey sense Nyes has. It's always been kind of my mon concern with him. It's just how smart is he? Is he just like this power guy with some touch who doesn't have great feet? But your point is valid. Maybe I'm just underrating the offense. He needs to be closer to 10 than he is to 30 or whatever he is right now.

I think I'd probably have him in the low 20s. But I think he's going to make Team USA. That's my prediction is I think Matthew Nise is on the Olympic team. Well, I mean, he could take Chris Kreider's job pretty easily. Yeah, except that also means you've, Tage Thompson is going to be there. Wasn't there last time. I mean, yes, definitely. Good luck.

Good luck. I think for the pace that, to Corey's point, for the pace that USA is going to want to play at, he's a step behind where they want to be at. Matt Nyes has played in Olympics. That he has. He is a former Olympic veteran. You're always an Olympian. You're always an Olympian.

And he was quite good. He was quite good for them there too. He was. I think the conversation with him versus like Thompson is, nice can kill penalties. And like he can be like a fourth line mucker. That's not what Tash Thompson is. Yeah, maybe he's taking Brock Nelson's role.

Right. Like that's kind of how Brock Nelson was deployed for USA. Yeah. He's a center. but yeah, give what you're saying. Yeah. Chris, do you have one? So, yeah, I mean, I would say for me, you know, when I look at these here lists that Corey

likes to put together, I let my rage take over and it really doesn't actually. I, Corey, I have to say, I was actually really disappointed. I'm reading this list and I, I joked before that I was, I was frothing at the mouth. This is probably the least frothy I've ever been. looking at. I think we covered a lot of the ones that we that we that we kind of were into, you know, the ones that we already talked about. But one that I find interesting at this point. And I know you've, Corey, you have always been a little higher on him, but I was actually surprised he wasn't a bit higher on this list was Nate Danielson at 42. And he's an interesting player. I don't have a problem with where he's at. It's more just kind of

of looking at the various tiers and who's around him there. You've got guys, he is ahead of Nazar in this list, which I did find interesting. He is ahead of some of these other, you know, guys that I figured you'd like. But, you know, also. Simon Edvinson within to Max's backyard within his own organization. When we do this update in six months, we have to have a rule. No more Hudson, Nazar, or Danielson conversation. We have to pick somebody else to talk about.

Well, yeah, because I was going to say he, well, let's talk about Cole Hudson then. So let's just. No, no, it's fine. We could talk. I was making a joke that seems to be, they seem to come up every six months. Chris is your first ever too low on Danielson, right? Is that or is it too high? Did I misunderstand that?

I'm just trying to figure out like, I'm still trying to figure out the player. So Corey, how is he, you know, in terms of top 50 prospect and where he, where he landed? I mean, what are, what are the things that you're seeing? seeing from him because I just, I quite frankly, haven't seen it yet. One of the youngest players in the American League last year, one of Grand Rapids, better players, one of their better players in the playoffs. 6-2, right-shot sentiment, who can skate,

who has legit skill, who plays both special teams, who works hard. A lot of traits there. I know the skill is, like, eye-popping skill, but it's good skills. It's, like, legit skill. Like, it's, I think it's a second power play skill in the NHL, I think, you know, maybe like a bumper, net front

type of deal. But I think, he has a lot of traits that it's going to translate that will lead to him to being a highly effective NHL center for a long time. It's hard to see him miss, quite frankly. I think he just checks every box and some with emphasis, like a really natural skater, really natural

puck handler. You can break ships open with his puck handling at times, and the pace at which he plays. It just feels like a really good hockey player. I don't know what to say, other than the fact that he doesn't meet some people's ideal statistical profile. but I don't know, every time I watch him.

Well, that's the question I have. And I sure Max feels the same way because he's watching a bunch. It feels like every time you watch him, he's one of the most impactful players on the ice, right? Yes. And then you look at the score sheet and it's, you know, one assist or no assists or whatever. I watch them a lot. That's my thing is that I keep coming back to is I keep hearing and seeing, you know, I see some of it too, but I keep hearing about this just remarkable skill that he has.

And it does not translate to the score. I don't know if I ever said remarkable skill. Well, you're, okay. above average skill. But other people also kind of spotlighted his hands. I think somebody was, was it Kane or somebody that said he's like, oh, he kind of reminds me of a badard. I'm like, what are we talking about here?

You know, so, so like I was just kind of, that's the thing is like I, I continue, I continue to see the shell. I just, I don't like you say he probably won't miss. And I mean, he can't miss because Detroit's going to need him. But at the same time, like I just, I haven't seen, for the same reasons that I get concerned about other plays. I just don't know what he is. I don't know if he's a middle six center.

Oh, I don't know if he's. Yeah, he's a middle six center. Come on. He could be a, he could be a third line guy who kills penalties and it's just good even straight. But I think there's some second line, second power play, you know, with some peak cane. What's a reasonable expectation for his NHL production in a season? Like, it is peak.

I think he could be between, I don't know, 45, 55 points with penalty kill duty. It's a pretty unexciting player to me. You don't how much a manager would kill for a 6-2 right-shot setter who could skate and scores 50 points and kills penalties? Yeah, I mean, they're, yeah, they're literally on every team in the league. All right. I mean. I mean, are they not? I just see him as another guy.

Like, I just have never seen special. And like a top 50 under 23 player to me is like should be a little bit, I expect a little bit more. I think we define special. somewhat differently. I think special is like top 10-ish. Even like start getting to the teens of like the under 23. I think you start losing the special flare a little bit. Exciting then.

Exciting player. I just I, I keep watching and I'm like, okay, I'm waiting to see what it is. And I just, I just haven't. Could you envision us,

Chris, having this exact same conversation about Brady Martin in a year or two? 100% we can. Oh, that's what I'm saying. It's probably in the right neighborhood, right? Like this is where those guys live.

Well, it's also not far from. Ryan Leonard and I think that there's a much, I think there's a much more exciting player in Ryan Leonard. I think we could have this exact same conversation, frankly, about Frank Nazar in a year. If, if Naser's like a 40 point guy, right? And it's, you know, Connor Geeky's a couple spots behind. I think there's a lot of guys of this exact profile right in this range. Right. I just, I don't think that he's in that group. I just don't see him in that group. I don't see Brady Martin in that group either. So how many minutes a night do you expect Simon

Evanson to play for the Red Wings this year, Max? I would have Edvinson above Danielson. No doubt. I think Edvinson is going to be a 21, 22 minute-a-night guy. He would be my number one U-23 guy for the wings, I think. But I'm not like offended that. You say that. What is he like, four spots behind or something like that? Yeah, for sure.

Yeah. We were doing this list and you guys are like, Corey, you're an idiot. Edfinson is definitely one. I'm like, all right, fine. It is interesting. No, but I, one thing I'll say about this about the Red Wings, just staying on that point. Yo, Corey's got a number of guys. You got Edmondson.

You got Casper. you got, you know, a couple of guys in that same range. And I have to admit, like, for each of them, I'm just like, okay, like, those are good players that'll help you. Like, I don't think. I, Eisenman's been criticized in some way, but I, and I, you can argue whether they've gotten value outside of the first round. But I don't think you can look at any of his first round picks that he's made and

said, this one's not going well. Like, there's no Phil of Zadina's in this mixture like, this is ugly right now. There's, there's not, it's not going well. but how many of these guys propel Detroit? I mean, Raymond's been on par. Sider's been on par if not exceeded his drafts lot. All these guys,

Casper and Danielson's sending Pelica and, and Branson, Neegar, they look right where they should have been drafted, I think. Like, it's just, it's hard when you build one piece at a time

and you're not picking in the top five. Correct. Yeah. And that's the thing is like my, my question, it really isn't a criticism of their drafting. It's more where you're at now, because Sandine Pelica also in that same range of these other guys,

how many of these guys are propelling you into a higher level of competitiveness? Playoffs, yes. I don't see any path for Detroit to be a Stanley Cup contender in the next 10 years. That's my thing. It'd have to be like a blues type run where like Cosa, Augustine, just go on some crazy run. And the team just kind of is a bunch of playoff style players. and they all just do really well for a month and a half or something like that. I think about the two Islander teams that push Tampa in those two years as kind of where it's headed.

It's like in a best case scenario, you could give a really, really talented team fits. And maybe, look, there was a one goal game seven in that series. Maybe that goes the other way for you. But I do agree. I think they're headed to being a really hard team to play against that ends up kind of in, maybe kind of where Carolina's at right now, frankly, where you can be in the playoffs every year and win a couple rounds. but you'll have a hard time getting over the time. I think that might even be lofty, honestly, Max.

I think they're more Minnesota. I'm not saying like the next two years, but I'm saying like if everything continues to go as as is. Right. Yeah, fair, fair. Yeah. Yeah. All right, we got time for two more. Scott, you get the first one. I'll bring it home. Only other one I, that sort of jumped out at me was Mason McTavish and not because I'm higher on him, but the other way.

It seems to me like the league is pretty soft. on Mason McTavish. Even his own team seems a little soft on Mason McTavish right now. I know Greg Cronin and I think there's worthy criticism of Greg Cronin and what he got out of McTavish and Mintyukov and it didn't really feel like anybody other than Jackson Lecombe actually got better at playing hockey in the NHL while playing on his team last year. But McTavish feels like he's hit a bit of a wall and barring a big step this year. Like we've been talking about guys in the 40s here. Corey has McTavish, I think 17th. So there's got to be a lot of belief there that this kid's going to be a star.

I mean, you're not in that top 10 that you were talking about, Corey. But where are you at on Mason and just what that next step looks like? Because he's now getting closer to 23 and they're still going to be runway for him and you'd still expect him to get better. But he has struggled to break through now. And if it doesn't work out under Joel Quinville here and he isn't a go-to, guy for them and guys like Goethe and Seneca and Carlson all leapfrog him suddenly I think he's just a solid middle six piece of the puzzle and there's some risk there so why are you convinced and maybe you're not convinced but if you're if he's at 17 you've got to have a lot of belief that

that there's another step here what does that look like for you for McTavish well I don't think Seneca or gocha or leapfrogging him because none of them are centers um so that's the start I'm not worried about that part there's only four forward there's only four forwards on PP1. Yeah, he may, I don't know if he is a first power play guy on a good team, on a bad team, which they are, he should be. But that's a, yeah, that's a whole other conversation. I think on a good team, he may not be the same way where, like,

I'm not sure if Baneers is, but I mean, I think there's more to, to what he brings than just the pure skill. Same thing with Baneers is like, you know, when you have the all of the off-the-puck value, the compete physicality to go with the skating and the size. And I think McTavish has pretty good skill, goal scoring ability. I don't know if it's special,

but I feel like he's such a, like, behind O'Leo Carlson, I think he's going to be such a, I just love what he could potentially be as a second line center on if and when Anaheim ever does turn it around. And I'm not so concerned, because I feel like,

I feel like it's easy to get excited about a guy when he's coming out of college, but when he has three years of being a productive NHL player, it's like, well, he hasn't hit, he hasn't taken off yet. I don't know, track record is still pretty damn good. And there's so many tools there that's exciting.

and like maybe he should be a little lower. Like, I think it's fair. I don't think his year was great last year, but I don't think it was bad. He's still one of the ducks better players last year despite how this, you know, tensiony contract negotiation is going right now with Anaheim.

And I just think there's so much to like there. And I feel like, second, if Anaheim ever got rid of him, I think he's the guy they're craving to try and find now. I feel like that kind of center, that that two-way centerman is so hard to find. My last one is a guy. I think should be quite a bit higher, although I will admit, I'm basing that on a little bit

outdated information. I did not watch Jet Lucenko a lot this past year. But the last time I was paying close attention to him, he damn near made the Philadelphia Flyers last fall. And so I guess I want to know what happened for you that Jetlucenko is now at number 152 on this list. Didn't have a great year. You know, plain simple.

Like he was great at U-18's last April. Then he had a great camp with a lot of. the Flyers, and then he went back to Guelph, and he was just good. Like, I don't know, he's 510, 511, great skater, worked super hard. But when you're that size, it's kind of the Nazar-ish conversation. Like, the offense needs to be pretty special, I think. I think he's going to be a top stick, which is what Philly believes. I saw Kevin Kerr's, our Flyers writer basically insinuate that I'm much lower on him than the

Flyers are, which is, I think he's a third line center. I'm guessing they think he's a second line center based on where he got drafted. but yeah, that's kind of just how I feel. Why is he different from that cluster of guys that we talked about, though, with, like, Danielson and Giki and some of the players who I think you could, you could question their offense, too. We just did. Yeah, well, Giki's 63, 64 and Danielson's 62.

So I think that's a start right there. So I think there's a little bit more projection there. Whereas I think with Lachenko, you know, he doesn't really score goals ever. you know, there's never, he has no real history of ever scoring. You could, you could point at times in Danielson's career and Geeky's career where they have been major offensive players. Yeah, in Portland for Danielson. Yeah, you know, and Geeky had that one big year in Winnipeg.

Like, what's Lechenko's, where are you hanging your hat on? Basically, a 10-day tournament pretty much that happened. Yeah, HL playoffs last year, I guess, looking at his stats. He was very good in the American League towards, you know, that would be the one argument in his favor, for sure. So I'm not offended if you wanted to rate. him higher. I just don't think I, I think calling him a second line center based on what we've seen so far. I think Nesbit on Philly has a much better chance to be a second line center

than Lachenko does. But that's a, we can unpack that one and we want another 20 minutes here if you want to do. That would actually be fun to unpack, but we won't. But like, you know, and I think to Corey's point too is obviously this is going to come at, I would expect the flyers to be much higher on him than Corey. They did just draft them last year. And if they didn't, then I think there would be some people looking for, uh, looking for a new job. if it was that, if it was that dire. But really, I mean, I think to Corey's point, when you, when you don't have that, that high end offensive capability, and we know, amazing skater, amazing compete level, all those things. Those are things you can find.

It's that other stuff that you can't. And it does make it harder for those players. But yeah, I mean, I'll be, like, I think maybe it was a bit, it was a bit harsh in terms of the depth of which he felt. because like, you know, we talk about, well, don't get so hung up on the numbers. When it's 152, then it's a little bit more, you know, like, okay, I get. But again, I can't really argue with the rationale behind it because I think, you know, you send a player back to junior and you expect them to level up. And that did not happen last year.

Well, like, they played different positions, but like, what's the bitter between him and East and Cowan, for example, as hockey players? Right. Slightly better skater. It's about it. Cowan and Cowan has shown way more offense to the OHA. Yeah, and Cowan's a better producer for sure. Lucchenco is smarter.

Cowan makes a lot of bad reads and that kind of thing out there. Yeah. And Lechenco is a center. Yeah. I have no issue with where you have Luchenko. I thought he was too highly rated last year and that the Flyers made a mistake taking him where they did. More playmaking from Luchenko, probably better sense.

But, I mean, Moore is an elite shooter also. Better vision, yeah. I would say more is an even more, more powerful skater. Yeah, more is a better skater and bigger, yeah. All right. Let's wrap there. Corey, I do appreciate you sitting in there while we do this. I know that that is a difficult chair to sit in while we pick through with a fine tooth comb,

everything you put at the work into. I would highly recommend everybody go read this article on Corey's ranking of the top under 23 players in the sport. Any final thoughts, Chris? Do you have something? You know, one thing I'll say is, yes, thanks Corey for sitting in there. And like I said, like, normally I'm going to get fired up a little bit more. But like if I'm arguing at the 42nd player on the list, it's, it's obviously I'm not that I'm not that fired up about it. But it is, it is hard to do. And I think that the important thing to remember about these lists is that

the nature of development is that these are going to change. And it's not, you know, this is Corey's view at it right now. It's good that we have differences of opinion. It wouldn't be any fun if we didn't, but also I think it wouldn't be realistic if we just agreed with everything because that's not how this thing works. So excited to see how this pans out. We won't know, you know, for years to come of what these guys are ultimately going to be, but you can only go based off the information you have now. And I think, you know, all in all, you know, whether we argue or not, I think it's, you know, it's a solid list. All right. Then that's going to do it for us. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect series. You can catch more of

Chris, of course, over at Flow Hockey, which you can catch everything at these days, and on his podcast called up. If you have a question on any of these rankings or on any of Corey's pipeline series or on anything at all prospect related, there's going to be a link in the description of this episode for where you can submit those. We're going to do a new system for the mailbags this year. You're going to submit them to this portal on the athletic, and we're going to roll through these bank of questions all year long.

You don't have to wait for a mailbag call or a tweet from Corey. You can just send us your question, and we will try to get to as many of them as we can throughout the year. So again, the link to that will be in the description. We'll talk to you soon.