The Athletic Hockey Show - Was Lane Hutson ranked too low on the U23 list?

Episode Date: January 24, 2025

Max, Corey, Scott, and FloHockey’s Chris Peters comb through the midseason under-23 NHL player rankings and debate the placement of Lane Hutson, Connor Bedard, Brock Faber, Nate Danielson, Jett Luchanko, Brock Faber, and Leo Carlsson.Hosts: 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 athletic Scott Wheeler and Corey Pranman, along with Flohockey's Chris Peters, for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. And guys, Corey and I went solo at the under 23 ranking last week. But I felt like we needed to revisit some of these topics. And we wanted to bring you guys in to really poke and prod at Corey's list in a way that I probably can't do by myself. So we're going to start here on the topic that obviously has dominated this whole discourse. Dominated our show last week has dominated the talk around the article when it came out.

And that, of course, is Lane Hudson. And I wanted your first reaction, Scott, to where Corey had Lane on his list, which is still pretty high. Like, I feel like that is getting lost in a lot of this is that being the 39th best under 23 player in all NHL organizations is still quite good. But what was your reaction to seeing the placement? It obviously generated quite a bit of feedback. I shared in some of the sentiment of what was happening in the feedback. I think people in our comments section just by and large tend to get carried away by these things, but I was still surprised. I mean, we're talking about a kid who's a frontrunner to potentially win the Calder Trophy this year,

who's having a historic season production-wise in the NHL for his age, a better season than Moritz Cider and Drew Dowdy and Aaron Eckblad and all of the top young defensemen that have come into the NHL really in the post-lockout era. he's got a chance to hit 55 or 60 points. He was for a time playing close to 30 minutes a night. Now he's playing closer to 25 minutes a night. He's been electric at times this year, especially since taking over on that first power play from Mike Matheson. I think he changed what that team looked like, especially after the swap with Matheson.

They've been a better team ever since then. Their power play has been better ever since then. And I think he's one of the biggest reasons that in any chance, team in the here and now is in the mix for a playoff spot versus a lot of these other kids that just aren't even close to making an impact at the NHL, let alone being a guy or one of the three or four guys on an NHL franchise, on an NHL roster, right? So I'm a huge fan of Lane. We've been over that again and again, but I think we're looking at a kid who's one of the bright young talents in the league. And certainly among defensemen, you take the forwards out of the mix,

there were some defenseman ranked tire than him here that I just don't think will ever make the kind of impact at the NHL level that Lane is currently making and is going to make into the future. The big disagreement I think that Corey and I have always had is about the defense and whether the defense will ever get to the level that Corey thinks it needs to get to in order to play 25, 30 minutes a night without giving back too much. But I think based off of what we've seen, he's defended well considering that team. that team defends poorly as a team. He's been much better since Alexandria Carrier was brought into the mix, and he's playing a little bit less with Savard now. I'm not worried about what he's going to look like at 23, 24, 25 years old at this point in terms of giving a ton back.

Will he give a little bit back? Maybe. But the offense is going to tilt so much in his favor when he's out there, and he's likely going to be so dynamic on the power play that I still think we're talking about a premium, premium, premium offensive defense been in the NHL and those guys are top of the lineup players. He's likely going to get a fat contract someday. I think we're talking about a future star in the NHL if he's not that already.

All right. So you said he's going to give a little bit of it back. I'll let Corey respond in a second. But I did just, I was looking at this in the wake of all this feedback because my sense has been a little more similar to Corey's and that he creates a lot of offense. He gives up some right now. And this, you know, he's a young player. This will change, obviously, with time, with.

with growth. Lane Hudson has given up the sixth or sorry, the eighth most expected goals against on ice five on five in the NHL, among all defensemen who've played at least 400 minutes. That's like 10 minutes, five on five a game at this point in the season. That is more than a little bit back. Is that fair to say?

Yeah, he's also a 20-year-old kid playing 25 minutes a night in the NHL against tough matchups as well. So I think the learning experience, the growing pains, all of that was to be expected. in actual raw goal differential results. Montreal Canadians have been better at 5 on 5 with Wayne Hudson on the ice than off the ice largely because of the offense more than more than what he's offering defensively.

But especially of late, I'd be interested to see what that looks like in the last 15, 20 games here, those splits because it does feel like that has rounded a corner, especially post-Callier trade, at least from sort of my eye test and sort of watching a lot of Montreal this year. to keep track of the Calder race and all that. But they have been a better team in terms of creation and the sort of the metrics of it tended to be better with him on the ice than off this year. And the offensive tilt is so high end that I still think you give him time to figure it out, figure out the sort of push and pull of his game.

And we're going to be talking about a pretty special unique player in the NHL for a long time, I think. Corey, what would you say to that? Well, I'll just say at the outset, I know there's been a lot of feedback about this. And I only know this quite frankly just because even though I think there's a thousand comments in the article and a bunch of other comments and of emails and text messages, I've got DMs, etc. I only really, I've tried not to read any of it to be quite honest because it's just because it's just because you rank so many players. Everyone has got

somebody opinions at all 100 plus players and where they belong or even the guys who were on the list who should be on there, etc. But I only know because people, whenever I went is at, at, whenever I was at a game or whatever I was talking to a hockey friend. Everyone keeps bringing you up, hey, you're getting carved up in Montreal pretty good right now. So I kind of got the sense that there was a popular sediment that I was an idiot in that regard. I've kind of said my piece on this already. I think guys know where I stand.

I think the offense is excellent. I think he's a pretty good skater. I don't think he's a Quinn Hughes-level skater. I think the size concern is going to be an issue in terms of defending, especially defending it in the playoffs. we can kind of go down that road. I think I was like looking the other day. I think only two defensemen at that size

that ever played in the NHL Stanley Cup finals. So like I think that's going to be when I talked to like teams about this when I was at the All-American showcase and the OHL Top Prospect Showcase this past week, that was always the comment that came up is like I just don't, you know, the people who like all think like he's a really good player

but don't know if that player type you can win with him. And I think that's that's the debate. You know, it's a debate. Not just with him, it's a debate with Adam Fox. It's a debate with Quinn Hughes, even to an extent, about how that player type holds up long term in the playoffs. But he's still a really good player. I think now I would look at this and I just kind of would turn it back to you guys. And it'd be like, well, first, like with Max, I have him back to back on the list with Simon

Evanston. Evanston was picked sixth overall by Detroit a couple of years ago. If that was a one-for-one trade proposal, obviously two very different player types, but what do you think Detroit would do if that was on the table? I don't think they would do it. And you're right. They're very different players. I think Lane Hudson's going to outscore Simon Edvinson every year of their NHL careers pretty much.

But Edvinson has a very different role. He has already a very good shutdown defender. And I think maybe most crucially, when you have your 5-9 offensive power play guy, you have to build around that and you can't really do. duplicate that too much. Certainly, you mentioned, you know, the size and the rarity in the Stanley Cup final. I'm not saying size is everything here, but when you have that guy, you can't really have three of them, right? Are you referring to like Sandin Pelica? You're just talking about it in general. Yes. Detroit has a guy who I think they envision on the way in Excellanding Pelica as

being their undersized, offensive power play guy. And I would struggle to see two of that profile in the top four of a cup team. Now, there are some counter-example, like Colorado had McCar and Sam Gerard. There are some counteries, but they are pretty rare. Gerard got hurt in that playoff run, don't he? I think that's correct, yes. And he was still a part of that team. So that's kind of like where I'm couching that with.

But I think when you have the Edvinson type, and I don't think he's just a defender. I think there is offense in his game, and he's shown that he's put up some good points this year without any power play time. But I think the all situations of that, I do think is more valuable. But are they in the same tier? I think they are in the same tier. But I don't think Detroit would make that trade. That was a second question, just for all three of you.

Where would you put him? I know you're not going to agree with everybody on the list and you're going to say, you know, they shouldn't go, this guy shouldn't be here, this guy shouldn't be there. We're not going to audit every single player. But like general range, where does he belong? I think I'd probably have him in the top 20. Okay. Max? I think in the 30s somewhere.

I mean, like there's some guys on your list that had really good pedigree who I think I would be ready at this point to drop below him. Like, I think at this point I'd probably take him over shaking. right. I think it's fair to put him above like Zane Perak, who's a similar profile guy, a little bit more size, but not as proven. But I think we're still talking in the 30s there, for me at least. For me, he's in the next tier up and he'd be at the top of the tier. So I'd say tier four, top of the lineup player. The question isn't, you know, is he a top of the lineup player on a Stanley Cup contender? Is he a top of the lineup player in the NHL? And I think you can

make that case that he is already and will be going forward. And I think part of the other discussion that we have, you know, to Corey's point, is you have to, what one of the hardest things to predict is which player is going to be the outlier. When we talk about the fact that there are players of his body type, of his size, you know, that have, we don't see many of those in that number one defenseman or number two defenseman role. The question has to become at some point is Lane Hudson the difference, like in the same way that UC Saros is that for goalies, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is, is so good that you are completely breaking the mold. And I think that's one of the hardest things that we have to do, you know, in, as any

a talent evaluator is to make that call. And I think that the hesitance to make that call is usually warranted because how many players are that. So, um, but I do think, you know, to your, just to get back to that initial point, like, I would, I would have them over Salaev. I would have them over Clark. I would have them over Perek decisively. I'm not as big of a believer in those players. And I have been very high on Lane over the years. But, you know, I think when I talked to Corey initially, you know, about the list and different things, too, and looking at it, I was like, you know, I think that there's a pretty strong case that you can make that, like, if you don't believe that Lane is that outlier, that he's in he's appropriately rated and that's the thing where it's you know where if if if you're

you kind of have to make that decision as an evaluator and so for me he's higher but I can also understand the argument and I think most NHL teams would argue similarly to Corey in where they have him now that again it comes back to that question is he different than because I mean those are the hardest people to convince that he's different yeah I mean, that's where the conversation comes in and makes it interesting. It's like, like I said, I pulled a bunch of NHL people in the wake of this feedback, and I asked them, like, would you, you know, your player, I had him rated ahead of lane, or directly right ahead of lane, would you do a swap?

And a lot of the answers I got back were no, which shouldn't be surprising. He's sandwiched in between a lot of recent top six, top eight pick. These are all players that their respective teams are super excited by, and had major passion in when they picked them. And a lot of them just said, we just don't do small defense. And it's just a philosophical thing. And it just wouldn't be a conversation for us.

And I think that's the interesting debate, is can you win with this player. And I think you can. I think you can win with Lynn Hudson. I think you can win with Adam Fox. I think you can win with Quinn Hughes. But I think it's a really interesting conversation. I think the people in the league would argue

that those players, will get overpaid for what they actually bring to the table just because of their numbers. In the same vein, similar to your Simon Edvinson question, you've got Brant Clark five spots ahead. Put yourself in the Los Angeles Kings shoes. If you're the Los Angeles Kings, are you swapping Brant Clark for Lane Hudson one for one? Because I think that's a pretty, even for most NHL clubs, I think that's a pretty clean trade that they make in favor of of Lane Hudson and what he brings to the table right now. It would be a good discussion.

A little different situation, I think, that Kings are just a much better team this year. But I think you look at like Brands underlying numbers, they've been excellent this year, even if the points haven't been at the same level. And I think you're thinking that his player type will just hold up better in the playoffs, too. That's the argument I think in favor of him. And I think brands looked really, really good this year. I don't think his offense is quite the same level as Lane's. but I think it's really, really good.

Defending is probably a similar question because of his skating, but he's bigger. I think there's a little bit more pushing his game back in terms of the physicality. But I think that's a really good question, and I would be open to that argument. I don't have them in different worlds. I have him a couple of spots ahead,

and I think I asked you guys, like, where you would have him? Some of him you say, oh, he'll should be 10 spots higher. Okay. And not how many other guys in that list could we have that debate about? none of you are saying he should be none of you guys are telling me he should be like behind leo carlson or like with like mitchkov or like above like or like with the in the badar tier or something like that it's so again you can argue i have him a little bit low i max argue i don't really have them that low but i don't think we are seeing things dramatically apart as maybe scott seems to insinuate at the top there i do think it's pretty dramatic for me with with some of the guys that are in front of him, but yeah. All right, so here's the question, and I'd like Scott and Chris's

feedback on this. How different would you say Lane Hudson is as a rookie and in his trajectory than a guy like Shane Gostisbeer, who took the league similarly, like really, I think it's almost identical production rate as a rookie, called a runner-up, top 20 Norris guy right away, but has kind of struggled to really stick as like a centerpiece of, you know, he had a couple really, really good years in Philly, but then he's kind of bounced around a little bit since then. And I think that kind of goes to the point I was making earlier about, you know, you kind of have to build it around them. And if you do that, then it gets a little tough, especially once the money starts coming, because he will get paid like a 50, 60 point defenseman if it keeps up like this, too.

I think for me, it goes back to Chris's original point about whether there's a special quality, because I think if you actually watch the two players, Shane was a very talented offensive defenseman in the NHL for a few years there. But even watching Shane at that age, there wasn't that same pop and magic and play creation that we see out of Wayne. Like I think Wayne is just in a different conversation in terms of the offensive skill. Yeah, I think it's an, I think it's an important point to like, because that is that that was kind of one of the things. And you look at a guy a little bit, a little bit older at that time, a little bit,

had had a, you know, a little more college experience before he made the transition to the NHL, which I do think matters. But the other thing that kind of stands out to me is you look at, There's also a significant difference in average ice time and different things like that. To roll like Gassas Bear produced, you know, kind of in a almost like power play specialist kind of role more so, even though he played top four minutes and everything else. But the other thing, too, like that I also come back to with all of these players is situational as well where Lane Hudson wouldn't play 25 minutes on most NHL teams. in fact you know like you look at you look at the habs blue line there's definitely some talent there

but i think you you say most nchl teams so the opportunity that he has to do what he does is different now in scott to go along with what scott's saying i also believe that lane is a bit of a different animal i think that his skill his skill level and his brain operated a different level than a player like a shangas despair um you know who also did did a lot of great things, but I do think that for me, Lane is his, his, his, I mean, I think he's one of the best puck handlers out there, certainly among defensemen, but like, people would ask me who I would compare him to before. And I said, well, he, honestly, when he, the puck is on a stick, he looks like Johnny Goddry me, you know, like, it's just like that level, that level of, of, of

skill. So that's, and, and again, how do you, how do you really quantify that? as a defenseman. Like how does that, how much does that help you in the end of play your position overall? I'm not entirely sure, but I think in Lane's case is far of what we've seen so far, and play creation, the ability to make things happen, the amount of slot passes that he makes, that's really the thing that I think is going to be a separating factor for him now and into his career. But we also have to know that NHL teams do adjust and they do figure things out and there will be harder times ahead. So we'll see exactly how he handles that.

And then maybe we'll get an even better chance to evaluate him. One last question for Corey, just to sort of follow up on Chris's point about NHL teams adjusting because I think Lane's also going to adjust and in theory get better here as he progresses and gets more experience at the NHL level. How much defensive improvement have you sort of couched into your projection? You've got a player like Luke Hughes, fifth on your list. Luke got caved in as a 20-year-old defenseman last year in the, in the NHL and has taken major strides this year as a second year player in the NHL to improve defensively.

What leeway or what expectation do you have for Lane in terms of getting better defensively into the prime of his career? Or are you just so concerned with the size that you don't think it's there for him? Well, I think the athletic profiles are not even in the same. world. Like, Luke's one of the five to ten best skaters in the NHL, and he, you know, he has a good size. So I think, you know, a lot of our job is projecting into the future there. I think you looked at that athletic profile. And you were thinking if he has any hockey sets. And I thought he always had at least some hockey sense. It might even been better than I thought Luke's was when

I watched when he was younger, quite frankly. And you think if he even competes a little bit hard, which I think he does, you're like, with all these tools, he will find a way to make it work. because he is so freakishly athletic that there's no way he won't be able to defend in the NHL, at least moderately well with the way he skates at that frame. You know, Lane's a really good skater. I don't think the foot speed's excellent, but his edges are pretty high end.

But I think, you know, I think there's always going to be kind of a ceiling on that, you know, in terms of just, you know, how he's going to be able to defend speed and, you know, and defend physicality in the NHL. I think what he does, I think you've seen guys like the special small guys, guys like Goodrow, guys like Patrick Kane, guys like Pavel Datsuk. I think what he's shown in the first half of the area is he showed a really good knack to not get himself killed, that he makes really good decisions.

And, you know, he has, I think a lot of people in the league are worried what's going to happen when he takes that one big hit. And to his credit, he doesn't take big hits. He doesn't get, you know, he gets rid of the puck before that kind of contact can happen. he doesn't put himself into stupid situations or try to, you know, get too cute with the puck, you know, handling into traffic. So I think that could bode well from on that front. But I just don't know. I think that'd be the difference there is just projecting me into the future. I think you're really hoping, you know, you're hoping that he is basically Adam Fox.

Like that to me is the projection. If you are believer in this guy, you believe he is Adam Fox. The guys who saw him in college, who were believers in the NHHL worlds, all said this guy is the next. Adam Fox. And I think the early trajectory shows he might be the next Adam Fox. And to me, the debate isn't so much, could he be the next Adam Fox? The debate to me also is what do you do when you have to pay Adam Fox $12 million. And can you build a winner around that? And I think the Rangers hard example that that could be a difficulty. All right. That's Lane Hudson. Let's all take a deep breath. We'll take a break. We'll come back. We'll talk about some more of our debates with Corey's

list in just a second. All right, we are back. And last week, Chris and Scott, I don't know if you guys listened to the show when you're not on it. We talked about a few guys with Corey. But I want to get your guys's biggest grapes with Corey's list or guys that you want to press them on a little bit or you would have ranked differently. So let's go around the horn here a little bit. That isn't Hudson. That isn't Hudson, yes.

Yes. Yeah, we have talked about Lane Hudson more. And this podcast is talking about Lane Hudson more than any other podcasts, not including every single one in Montreal. So anyway, moving on. So like I think I always enjoy seeing, you know, what people like Scott and Corey and everybody else thinks and how it differs from my list. And I think that the real fascinating one and you think about it, it's not really necessarily a huge disagreement. But Connor Bardard was three on this list. And you think back to pre-draft type, you think back to the, you know, I can't.

I can't scroll on any social media app without somebody uncovering some rare Connor Bedard card that is worth, you know, a few thousand bucks or something like that. So he's behind Tim Stutzler. He's behind Macklin-Cellebrini. And I quite frankly don't disagree with the number one player on this list. I think that Celebrini is starting to prove that his all-around game is there. Where I am intrigued is, especially when we talk about projecting. So you've got Stutzla who is on the older end for this list. Badard, he's at number two.

Badard is number three. Obviously, like I would, you know, based on this preamble, I disagree with that. So, you know, and I think, again, Corey, I think comes back to the idea of projecting. So you're, you're, you're, you're comfortably putting stut, well, I wouldn't say comfortably because it's not comfortable. No, not comfortably at all. And I think that is important. The nuance is important.

because often these are hair splitting decisions. But just in terms of like, you know, I just think that I want a little more context in terms of how you ultimately came to that decision of Stutzla over Bedard as we go here. Yeah. I mean, it was very similar to that Luke Hughes debate we had in the first segment where I just think the traits that Stutzla have to me are just so special. top 10 skating forward in the league for me might even be higher than that top five you can argue in terms of just pure skating ability while he's just shown so much offense in the league since he's coming to the league I think just really dynamic even strength player in terms of just everything he can do with his skating and skill playmaking ability competitive centerman as well to me projecting him forward like this is a guy I think you know you look at what wins in the NHL playoffs, like this is the guy who I think could be a first line center on a winning team.

Like he has the makeups of those kinds of players. You think of Cup champions and what first line centers would look like on those teams. To me, he looks a lot like those players tend to do in terms of what he could bring to the table. He will lag behind Bedard in terms of skill and especially in terms of goal scoring ability. I think his finish has always been a question, although Badard's goal scoring hasn't quite been quite as prolific as we would have thought when he was in junior, at least but he's a teenager. So I think that could change as he gets stronger and older.

But to me, that would be the debate there is I think Baderd, similar to maybe it's a conversation we had in the first day, but I think Baderd is going to get more points to him throughout the course of his career. And their production is similar-ish, right, as it stands right now, although with a significant age difference. But I think Stutzla's offense is still pretty special. This puck play is pretty special. And that skating profile is just so unique that I think, like, when the game gets really fast and competitive, I think that's going to be a guy.

You're going to play 28 minutes in those hard playoff games and he's going to make a difference. All right. How about you, Scott? Yeah, I'm kind of in the same boat as Chris. I don't think it's egregious. When I did my sort of prospect tiers project in the fall, there was debate amongst NHL scouts I talked to about Stutzel versus Bedard. And that was even before this season for the both of them. I do think it is noteworthy that as of recording today, they've both played 47 games.

One has 45 points. The other has 41 points. One is four years older. One is playing with Drake Batherson and Brady Kachuk and Claude Jureux. The other is playing with players who are obviously a long way from that. I think if you swapped them situations that even at his early age from a production standpoint, we'd be talking about Connor Bedard is a pretty clear cut above Tim Stutzla at this point. But in saying that, I am at least a little bit concerned about Baderd defensively and what he's going to be like playing 25 minutes a night when it matters in terms of just his ability to own it and be the guy.

But I also think four years from now we could be talking about 23-year-old Bader in a much different way than we're talking about 23-year-old Tim Stutzla, who's been a 70 to 90-point player in the NHL. So I don't know. It's a tricky one for me because I can see the case in terms of what they're going to look like as playoff types. And I do think Bedard has a long way to go in terms of his playoff the puck and faceoffs and defensively, especially if he wants to be a center and a first line center for a Stanley Cup team. But I think the context of what Bedard has done and who he has done it with cannot be overstated to this point in his career so far. And Tim has been surrounded by some pretty good players, even though they haven't had team success,

Tim himself has been surrounded by some pretty good players, basically since he entered the league with Ottawa. All right, who would your biggest gripe be? My big one is, we've talked about it before, but it was Nate Danielson. When I was scrolling through the list, his name was the first one that sort of popped out at me and I sort of had a whoa moment.

I believe, let me pull it up here. Yeah, Nate is one spot behind Will Smith and ahead of Zane Perak, Ryan Leonard, and Lane Hudson, who we've already talked about ad nauseum, I think that Ryan Leonard is a dominant force at every level he's played at to this point in his career. I think Zane Perak and Will Smith are two of the most purely skilled young players we have in this sport.

And I just don't, I just, I don't see it with Nate. I like that he's a 6-2 center who can skate and he's competitive. He's got four goals in the HAL this year, good player. but if you're talking about the impact and where they're going to play in a lineup, I think that if Zane Perrek, Ryan Leonard, Lane Hudson, Will Smith, if those kinds of guys hit their ceiling, if those guys hit their mark, we're talking about dynamic, dynamic players in the NHL, and I just do not think that Nate Danielson has that in him.

Like I think even if Nate Danielson hits his mark, he's probably a 50-point center in the NHL, and I'm not even fully convinced that he's going to get there in terms of the offensive piece of it. So yeah, I've never been able to really wrap my head around Nate. I think he's going to be a good NHL player and have a long career, but I think there are players who are ranked in the same tier as him for this project who are just a clear, clear, clear cut above.

So that one more than Lane, honestly, that was the one player on the list that really, really leapt out at me. Corey, what say you there? The production hasn't been amazing this year, but I would argue that he's been Grand Rapids one, two, three best players this season as one of the youngest players in the America League. I think he often, you know, he's playing every situation, 19, 20 minutes and night for them. He stands out. I think that's always kind of been the issue of Danielson is aesthetically, he looks like a top prospect with besides skating.

I think he has a really good skill. I would disagree with that assessment. I think his skill really pops. I think he competes hard. I just think he doesn't score goals, really. That's always a concern. And just the point production can maybe doesn't reflect to me what I see when I watch the player. Like Max, I know you just want to go watch him just for two games.

And by all, you know, in terms of what you saw, you seem to think that he, that's basically what you saw was a guy who looked like a top prospect, right? Yeah, I was only able to stay for the Friday night game. So I only saw him in the one. But yeah, I mean, it was in the game I was at, he had a post, he had an assist. He had two more like rushes that I thought looked like they might become a goal. I think one of the passes got broken up. I don't know exactly what happened on the other.

But I left that leaving like that. That should have been a multi-point game for Danielson based on how it looked. And yet, you're right. That is a familiar story at this point. And there is a little bit of tension between the tools, which I think look clearly like a top six center. And you just want to see the results and the production match that, right? Yeah. You know, the other, Danielson has always been one of the toughest ones for me to evaluate as well.

And I think the other thing compounding his production this year is, you know, Karen Rapids is averaging somewhere around like they're averaging under three goals per game. That's not a very high scoring team. It's not a team that has as has done a lot. He's had some eye popping plays throughout the season. But again, like I think it all comes back to repeatability. And that's the thing that I've never ever felt in, in, you know, multiple viewings over multiple events and multiple levels that I've ever seen him do it. Now, with the time that he has in the HL, I think that, like, the way that Detroit has typically, you know, had their prospects spend that time there, I think there is time for him to get there. And I think that until he's there, I don't see him as a top of the lineup guy. And that's, that's probably my, my gripe as well. But, but again, I think it comes back to him being, you see all the tools. You see, like, aesthetically, like Corey said, there is so much to like. it's just a matter of, you know, when the rubber hits the road here, like where, where you got to There was a window last year in Portland where he looked like that player, where he was surrounded by real players on a high scoring team and he drove that team deep into the playoffs. I think just the fact that we're talking about could he get there and how Grand Rapids uses their players and a window of time speaks to the fact that he's not. a premium premium stud guy.

Like Ryan Leonard and those types of guys, they just go anywhere they play and they dominate. And I just have not seen that really, even in Brandon and Portland, like he hasn't just been a force, been a, the kind of guy who goes out and has 120 points in the WHL in a season, or just completely owns a playoff run

and takes a team to a championship, or steps up at the world, juniors and is a top player for Canada at the world juniors. Like he just, he hasn't been that. And even in Grand Rapids this year, if you're talking about a player who's had a good season, sure, he's had a good year. He's been a top player for them. He's not one of the best young players in the H.L.

He's not a force. He's not dominant on a night-to-night basis. So that's, I just, I just still am waiting to see that from, from Nate in a way that I've never had to wait to see that from Will Smith when he was in college. or at the program or at the world juniors, or Ryan Leonard when he was in college or at the program or at the world juniors or Lane Henn-HUricks or Lane Preck has had back-to-back 90-point seasons in the in the OHL and won a Memorial Cup and was playing 30 minutes a night in the Memorial Cup final.

And I'm just waiting to see that from Nate, I guess. Is that fair, though, to the wherever he goes thing, when the wherever he goes was the NTDP in Boston College? Like, those are not hard places to score. Sure, but we've also seen them both on the ice at the world juniors together, and it wasn't even, like, it wasn't even close the impact that those players had, even as 18-year-olds in Smith and Leonard's case in two world juniors ago in Gothenburg versus the impact that Nate Danielson had on that turn. Like, there have been touchstones along the way where we've seen them in comparable settings, and it's just, it's not close for me. A lot of players have also gone to Boston College and not had 70-point freshman years. Well, he's a top prospect, but I'm just saying, like.

I thought Daniels was actually decent at the World Generous. His ice type started going up there towards the end. That candidate was kind of a gong show, I thought. But I thought he was decent there. I don't think Leonard or Smith really had tremendous tournaments either overall, but they had good tournaments. I think a lot of it's not just what they do at the amateur levels, projecting them into the NHL.

And I think you look at his athletic toolkit and you project that into the NHL. I thought, you know, we can't just get so focused on production and always, like they're stats. You got projected what they're going to look like in five years, too. And that, to me, is with a guy like Danielson. Even if, you know, we'll see whether the scoring ever comes or not. But I think just that the upside he has and the profile he has. And I think he has looked very good as a pro.

When I've watched him in Grand Rapids this year, he stands out as one of their best player. All right. Let's go to my grip here. I think you're way too low on Jet Lucenko, Corey. And he's in the hundreds. I think he's at 110. And I wonder, like, what is the gap between him? and a guy like Marco Casper who is at 44?

Well, like Casper definitely is a little bit bigger. And I think, but both of them have some questions on how much offense are they really going to have. There are the two-way center type. And, you know, Lachenko was kind of making the steady upward swing throughout his draft year. You know, good second half, really good U-18s. Goes to Flyers camp. It looks really promising. But honestly, ever since he went back.

to the OHL this year. I don't think he's been that great. Like I think, you know, that Guelph team has really struggled, and he's been given a lot of opportunity. And when I've watched him, I just don't see a guy whose offense is really standing out on a nicely, nightly basis in terms of how much offense he creates. I think his finishing touch is still a significant concern for a 5-11 guy.

Like, we talked about this before the season. We had questions saying, like, what is it going to take for you to elevate Lechenko into, like, the top, top tier? Well, maybe if he goes back to the league and he, plays that great two-way game and he finishes more and he's going to basically have like 30, 40 goals. Like, I'm hoping he gets the 20 goals this year. Like, it hasn't been a super, super impressive year for him. So now I'm wondering he's just like a third line center in the NHL.

And maybe I'm wrong because, you know, given how good he looked, saying Flyers camp, for example, he looked like a potential top two-line center in some of those games he played for them. That's my concern is I think he's just a 5-11 guy who skates really well. has pretty good skill, but it's nothing special and competes hard. And that, to me, could be a third line center task. But to me, you know, he's super competitive, like super competitive to go with more size and good, not great speed and skill. And I think that profile to me led to self more via second line center.

I don't know, maybe second line wing. But I think that profile just trends better into the NHL. Yeah, you know, it was interesting hearing Danny Breyer talk this week about, you know, how Canada used him at the tournament. And quite frankly, there wasn't a point in that world juniors where I thought he should have been anything other than their fourth line center. Like that was one thing. It was not a good tournament for him. He was a non-factor even before the tournament in selection camp and through the pre-tournament play as well.

Like I thought outside of the PK, Luchenko was very, very vanilla for returning NHL player top 15 pitch. like he just he didn't bring a lot offensively and i know people wanted to see him elevated in in that lineup but i thought calum ritchie and berkeley catten and braden yager were better options for them down the middle and had a greater impact on on their shifts cori on this one i also wanted to bring like when we talk about jet luchenko the guy that i i keep coming back to is the a lot of the conversations have been similar nazar well no no no i i'll let I'll let you off the hook on Nazar, even though we also disagree on that one. But Oliver Moore, this speed factor, not really a driver, you know, like those kinds of things.

And Oliver is is a little bit higher. I just wonder in terms of just as we continue this conversation on Lucchenco, you know, what maybe are some of the key differences between those two guys there? I think they're similar. Like, and again, when we're talking 91 versus, you know, the one-tenth, we're really splitting hairs here. Same tier, yeah. I think they're going to be similar in the NHL, like third line players, penalty killer, secondary offense. That's kind of what I think the projection is. You know, more, maybe just a little bit bigger. That could help him maybe, you know, stick down the middle. Lachego, I still think can stick down the middle of the NHL. And maybe I'm wrong with

Lichago, maybe just being too harsh based on his first half here in the OHL. But he doesn't really have, you know, a long history of being an offensive guy. So I think you were hoping that he was, would build that history this season, not further the questions. Yeah, yeah, I think that's, I do want to see them race at some point, but that's about it. So, I, Chris, you had another one here. Yeah, you know, this is one Corey knows well because we've had this discussion multiple times. And, and it's, you know, it's, again, we're talking about a guy that's still very high on the list. And you were splitting hairs, but he's also a guy that is, you know, playing in the four nations coming up here.

And it's Brock Faber who comes in at number 23. You know, again, I think it's, you know, to me, I think that Owen Power is among the more, and Sam Dickinson are among the more egregious players that are ahead of him just because of the positional similarity. I don't necessarily think that he's in the wrong tier. You know, I could maybe make the argument that he belongs in a similar tier to Jake Sanderson. you know, but I don't have that huge of a gripe, but I just think that, you know,

Brock favor is one of my favorite players because if, you know, I'll do respect to anybody that ever does a player stat card for, for prospects. I believe, I believe Brock was given a zero percent chance by at least one place to be an NHL player. And that was one of the ones where I was like, I don't know if I'm ever going to read another stack card.

But anyway, the, the thing about him is, is, I think that he is going to be a centerpiece of USA's Olympic team. I think that he is going to be one of the more, I think he's going to play a ton of minutes in the four nations as well. I think that he is one of those guys that isn't necessarily as flashy, isn't necessarily as productive, but boy, if you can, that's the kind of guy that I think you can win a lot

of hockey games with. And I think, you know, that's a big reason why I have a lot of belief in that U.S. team to compete with the depth of Canada because they have players like Brock Faber now that they didn't have before because you can't just have the top guys and then, you know, have that your second tier guys maybe. But I still think that we're talking, you know, maybe not production wise as an NHL All-Star, but as a impact-wise in NHL All-Star. Probably a lot of similarities to McAvoy, probably, like in terms of-

Yeah, I would say, yeah, yeah. in terms of the player style. I think with Faber, again, having him, you know, basically saying a bubble all-star, I forgot what exactly the year he was kind of thing. Like, I think he's a monster. And as I don't think it was disputed,

he already got paid like a monster. He's playing like a monster. Like, it's just the matter of leveling out where he belongs. And we have Brock, despite his massive success in the NHL through his first year and a half in the league, I have never,

maybe it's a bias in my head, head, I just can't get out. I have never been able to connect the dots between the offense he's provided. And what I actually think the player is as a hockey player, in terms of I've never viewed him as like a playmaker or a first power play guy. And I can't help but think when Zeev Boyum gets to this team. And I think he's going to get here in the spring, going to be playing playoff games for the wild potentially. I can't help but think, particularly next season when that comes in. And I don't know if he's going to give him the first power play right away. He may not. It's still a kit. But I think at some point in the next year or two, just like when Mike Matheson hands off

the reins Elaine Hudson, I think at some point Faber is going to give the power play to boy him. And then I do wonder what Faber's value to this team or to a team when he is not running the first power play. And he's just this really good skating, really competitive guy who's probably not going to, you know, really be a major offensive guy at even strength. I still think he's a star or a budding star in that regard, but maybe just not in the way he's been used over the last 18 months here in Minnesota. That would be the tough part. But maybe I'm just an idiot and I just haven't given him enough credit for just how well he's

moved the puck so far. And he's just all prior evaluations of him, including how his coaches in Minnesota used him, mind you, which was not a power play guy. they've just been completely wrong. He's an elite puck guy. Things changed. I just couldn't, can't get all the way there in my evaluation of him. Yeah, I just think he's one of the smartest players in this age group.

I just think to me, that's where I see the significant difference. And what has happened over the course of his career and the reason that I think he had such immediate success in the NHL is that as he was getting, he always had that. that brain. But as he continue to get stronger physically, his skating has always been an asset to him, all of those different things. They've all combined at the right time for him to be, you know, an immediate impact player. And I personally, like, if he's not number one power play, I don't give, I don't give a shit, honestly. I mean, like, I think that really he's, to me, he's going to probably, you know, lead his team and even strength ice time every, for the next 15

years. Sure. That's, which I place a high amount of value on. The other thing, you know, like we look at Minnesota as a whole and the future core, I feel like for the first time ever, and this really kind of hinges on their ability to pay Kappersov, you know, that they're on there, they can get out of the mushy middle with the core that they're building. They probably could pay him as whether he wants to get paid there.

Exactly. Yeah, I believe me. I know they can. and they say that they will. But yeah, I mean, you still have to be like, hey, we're not, we're not the, the glitziest and glamiest. And that part of that is because that forever, they've been in the mushy middle and they need to get out of it.

So hopefully they do. And I think Faber is going to be a big part of that. All right, Scott, you got the last one here. Bring us home. Yeah, last one for me was, was actually Leo Carlson, who's all the way up at number four. He's kind of at the very, after those big three of Celebrany, Stutzland, Badard, he's the very top guy on Corey's list. And I just, in watching Leo over the last year and a half here in the NHL and even before that, one of the big questions I always had about Leo was did he have sort of that that fire? Did he have that drive to be the guy?

Like to be a truly dominant game to game, shift after shift, first line, carry a team kind of guy. And the more I've watched him in the NHL, the more I've wondered about that. I like Leo a lot. He's got the length. He's extremely intelligent. He can skate. He can make plays. He's got the vision on the power play.

All of that is high end. Maybe the skating isn't, I wouldn't call high end, but it is a piece of the puzzle that isn't an issue for him. I just don't know whether I can wrap my head around Leo becoming like a Miko Ranton-in type of player, like a truly, truly top of the lineup guy.

And it all comes back to just, I don't think he's, I don't think he's in the fight. I don't think he necessarily, and part of that's just the fact that he's a big, lanky, skinny kid and he still needs to get stronger. So maybe that will come. But I just don't think he's in, he's in the guts of the action in the fight as much as, as much as I'd like him to be. And he's still really young player and he's going to be a fabulous player for the ducks

and a big piece of the puzzle for them. But I'm starting to wonder about the upside that we maybe thought was there in Leo pre-draft and whether he's, whether he's got it in him to reach that ceiling. all the ones you've skies I said before I've kind of like pushed back here a little bit and then like I put it down and been like you know I kind of really

probably believe everything I said there but Leo was the one where really up until the day I published and I had no idea where to put him and it made me real nervous putting him at that number because for all the reasons you said it's just like it hasn't come in a major way yet in the NHL

and to me he still remained there in large part for hope and That doesn't sound like a great answer or great analysis. But in reality, what I mean by that is I still look at, he's still really, really young. This is still a guy in his second year after the draft. And the traits to me are just still are just outstanding. Like the way he can skate for his size and the tremendous amount of skill and offensive hockey sense he has,

it's the same argument I have with Luke Hughes. Like, it has to work. Like, if it doesn't work for you, it's not going to work for any of these other moaps we're going to be talking about when come draft here, like in the midfirst routers, like that kind of thing. Like, you have to be good, like really good, because you are so freaking talented. And even if he isn't, you know, super physical or super competitive, I get all, and he isn't scoring at a super high level right now on a team that quite frankly isn't that good. Like, I get all those concerns. But to me, I am betting on the long-term projection here. that he is going to hit because he is just so stupid talented.

But I, like, if you were, like, if we were on the same team, you're like, and we were debating between him and I don't know, like, Tantilly and his draft, your or Meechikov or whatever. You're like, I just can't get that. I be like, yeah, I understand. Like, I do. And I, like, I respect that opinion. Like, it's a really high rating I have of this player despite the limited NHL success so

far. But to me, it is really about just pure. projection. Like, I think if he was in the SHL still right now, he'd be just destroying that league in, in hilarious ways. And I just think at some point here, it's going to click, but it may not quite frankly. Like, maybe he is, you know, a better version of Kockeniumi or whatever kind of thing. Like, that's, that's always distinctly possible. But I think he is, I think it's going to come for him. I'll be interested to see as well how he does at the Four Nations. I think it's kind of been lost. I think he's going to be the youngest player at the Four

nations. And I think in that different environment that isn't Anaheim, I'm sure he'll play a limited role, but I'll be really curious to see how he fares in that environment. I think another interesting point of conversation on Carlson is how, you know, the Ducks obviously calculated development plan where they weren't playing him in all the games last year. And I'm also, the way that I've watched him this year, I'm like, I don't know if it worked. I don't know if it had its desired intent because you look at some of these guys and I think we look at a lot of different players. I think Alexei Lafranierre, different guys is like, you know, and he's a different situation because of the COVID year and all that other stuff that kind of was in play is that, you know, a lot of these guys that have that significant talent level and they have all those physical tools and they appear ready for the NHL weren't. and then all the sudden, what does that do?

We always constantly hear about, well, the NHL is not a developmental league. Well, they used it as a developmental league for Leo Carlson. And so, like, I think you look back at throughout Buffalo Sabres history and the different guys that they brought up too soon. And you wonder, you know, how that does that negatively impact things going forward? I think it's way too early to say that on Leo Carlson. But I do think that that, you know, the idea maybe he should have been in Switzerland. lead in last year. Maybe he should have been, you know, and those are all those things that we could talk about

every single guy like that. But at the same time, like, I'm very curious after watching him this year, it's like, whatever was happening last year didn't translate to a better second year. And I, and now he's, it's on him to figure out how to get it back, I guess. Well, you mentioned Ranton and Rinton played American League. Yes. And then he still took, he took a little bit of time in the NHL and then it kind of really although I think different level of skaters there,

senders versus wing, et cetera, et cetera. It is like and obviously like I I've been paying way more attention to the HL this season with them being on flow. And the more I watch these young guys, the Consta, Hellenius, all these other players, they are figuring it out at that level. And they're not great. It's not amazing.

But like Rantanin was great. Willie Nielander was pretty great over time in the HAL, David Pasternak. And this step that is skipped for these guys that get drafted first, second, and third overall, just because they're drafted first, second, third overall, I feel like teams are continually missing opportunities to get these guys. And yeah, of course I want to see top draft picks in the league that my company covers. But at the same time, we've seen it with so many guys that when you have the option to go to the HL and you don't use it,

especially when they might not be ready for the NHL, that's when I start to get a little bit wary of these development plans. To your point as well, Chris, the best thing, I think the best thing that the LA Kings could have done for Brand Clark last year was exactly what they did, which was cut bait on his short NHL stint at the start of the year, send him to the AHL.

He was excellent for them for 50 games in the NHL. And then when this year started and puck dropped on this year, I think Brand Clark was in a much better spot to be an effective NHL player than he would have been. and had he stayed all year in the NHL last year. Really quickly, just wanted to say on that too, yeah, like, the stigma of sending a guy down is far better to deal with than him not panning out. So, you know, like, I don't know why there's such hesitation sometimes,

because Clark is a tremendous example, went and played in the All-Star game, did all these, you know, great things for the rain. And then he comes in and he's far more prepared this season. And I think it's a great thing for him and a great thing for the organization. I've often wondered if I should have been sent to the HL for a while. 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 Chris over at Flow Hockey.

And on his podcast called up, we'll talk to you soon.