The Athletic Hockey Show - Way-too-early World Cup roster projections

Episode Date: July 24, 2026

The NHL’s World Cup of Hockey is set for February 2028, but it’s never too early to start arguing about lineup projections for both Team Canada and Team USA, which is exactly what the guys do on today’s episode. Max, Corey, and Scott break down which forwards, defensemen, and goalies should make the cut, including a very spicy debate about Montreal Canadiens defenseman Lane Hutson’s potential role on the US blue line.Hosts: Max Bultman, Corey Pronman, and Scott WheelerExecutive Producer: Chris FlanneryProducer: Chris FlanneryWatch full episodes on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theathletichockeyshowJoin our Discord Server: https://discord.gg/VTm9VjkFSubscribe to The Athletic: https://theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the athletic hockey show prospect series. Hey, everybody, Max Bolman here alongside the athletics, Corey Pranman and Scott Wheeler for another episode of the athletic hockey show prospect series. Fellas, we are in the dog days of the off season here. We do have the World Junior Summer Showcase coming up. We do have the Halinka coming up. That is all very much on the horizon. But this is the time of year where I think we like to have a little bit of fun. We like to look too far ahead into the future.

And that's what we're going to do today with the. the 2028 World Cup preview here. Now, I know, we don't know. There's a lot that's going to change between now and then. But here I think is the value of this, right? We talked about the Olympics long enough, I think, for people to have a good feel for what we think of the kind of broad player pools. But in the wake of the Olympics, I think there are still a couple spots that always

become really interesting. And these become good snapshots of where we stand at this moment in time. They become good windows into what are the big debates going to be. I think that's what we're looking for today. specifically on Team Canada and on the U.S. I'm sorry to our Swedish Finnish check listeners who would want to hear similar things on those teams. We're going to stick to USA and Canada today.

And we're going to start with Team Canada. Team Canada probably was the best team at the 2026 Olympics. Of course, did not get the job done in the gold medal game against Team USA. But it poses a really interesting question, Corey, of like, how do you view this as Team Canada's management? Do you look at this as a situation where, hey, this is what we got? We're going to kind of repeat it. Or do you look at this and say, well, we didn't get the job done, we got to make some changes?

Probably a little bit of both. I still think you thought the team looked very good. And especially in the gold medal game, they dominated, you know, possession, scoring chances. But also, I think, too, compared to the U.S., a lot of their core guys are going to get up there in age. You know, you think of guys like Mark Stone or Crosby depends, you know, whether he's still playing in two years from now. And I think there's going to have to be a lot of interesting conversations with Team Canada, you know, about some of the guys that they brought. And whether there's, I don't think there'll be wholesale changes. But I think you're going to see, actually on the forward front, I think you'll see a couple of players swapped out.

All right. So let's kind of go through that. I mean, we did a little bit of pre-show work here to figure out where we don't need to spend a lot of time. And no surprise to anybody. we're not going to debate Connor McDavid, McLeodney, or Nathan McKinnon today. We're also not going to debate Mitch Marner, Sidney Crosby, Braden Point,

and Brendan Hagel today, Brandon Hagel today, and Nick Suzuki, for that matter, right? I don't think any of us raised any objections to those guys being in the mix. That being said, there are some spots worth us discussing. Tom Wilson, Sam Bennett,

Anthony Sorrelli. These are guys from the Olympic team that I think as we did our pre-show work. We had some back and forth about. On the flip side, there are some rising young players, no surprise. Connor Bedard one of those, Wyatt Johnston, one of those, Seth Jarvis. And he was actually on the team already, so I should have mentioned him in the previous group. But also Logan Stankovin, his Carolina Hurricanes teammate.

So for that group of seven players. And Dylan Genther. And Dylan Genther, that's right. Another up-and-coming score, 40 goals last year for the Utah math. For those eight players, what do we have, three spots there? My math is correct? Correct. Three spots for six players.

All right. So let's start at the center position and with Anthony Sorrelli because this is one that to me, I would leave as is. And I know, Scott, you disagree. Yes, Sorrelli, Wilson, and Bennett, I'm not convinced that any of the three of those players are going to be on the team. Wilson obviously is coming off of two back-to-back career years. But I think two years from now, really, it's a year and a half from now.

But a year and a half from now, I'm just not convinced. that Tom Wilson's going to be as important a player in, frankly, even within the Washington organization with the additions of Jordan Cairo and the Protest brothers. And I just have some doubts about Wilson's effectiveness to play that same role again two years from now. Bennett, I think that ship will have sailed a year and a half from now. Sorelli's an interesting one. Sorelli feels like the kind of prototypical force.

with Flying Center. He's played the checking role. He's been a Selke candidate. I could be talked into Sorelli. I'm not sure I could be talked into Wilson or Bennett two years from now. All right. So here's my case on Sorrelli is each of the last two years. If this was an all-star team, Anthony Sorrelli doesn't have the star power, obviously, to be on it. But top three for the Selke each of the last two years, where are you going to find a better checking center, specifically for the fourth line? And I know, like, the way we first mapped it out, I think we had him on the third line and Nick Suzuki on the fourth. Nick Suzuki's a hundred point player and the Selke winner. I'm putting Nick Suzuki on the third line there.

So I'm looking for a four C here. And what do I want from a four C, if not one of the three best defensive centers in hockey? What if a year and a half from now, Wyatt Johnston is one of the four or five best defensive centers in hockey and is giving you 80 points instead of 50 points? Like, what? If that happens. that I would make. If that happens, then that would change a lot. But where things stand today,

like, Wyatt Johnson has never received one Selky vote. His expected goals against last year on a really good Dallas team was 2.9 with him on the ice. Like, he is definitely in a different stratosphere of producer than Sorelli. But, like, I just haven't, like,

why Johnson is going to be an excellent two-way center. I don't doubt that he's going to get Selky votes throughout his career. But I, it says, as we sit here today to say that a year and a half from now, he's just going to be already where Anthony Sorrelli is defense. It just seems like more of a leap to me than I'm willing to concede, I guess. I think you have to consider the ability to contribute offensively, though. Like, I would worry that in that role, Sorrelli's a bit of a black hole.

From a 10 minute a night, like 12 minute a night center, like that you're hoping for offense? I think you're, yes. Canada needed more offense in big moments in this Olympics. Like, you have to consider offense everywhere in the lineup in best on best, I think. you do and it's always going to be the push and pull corey because we when you see a two one game you can look at it either way you can look at it how scott is saying and you can say look at one more goal you needed more offense you can also look at it the other way and say there's not much offense to be had by any of these all-star players if nathan mckinin and mcclindsellabrini

and connor macdard macdavid aren't scoring does that tell you that the more important risk profile or more important kind of profile is minimizing the chance you're going to give something up to your opponent. Yeah, I mean, I just, if you replay that game and Sorelli, who wasn't in the game, was there, I'm not sure, like, him, you know, especially if they're down a goal, he's getting what, maybe one or two shifts there in the third period, like late in the third period especially. Like, it's, I just don't know. I, again, it's just this is the nature of the exercise where we're going to be arguing about

third pair of vizmen and fourth line forwards. I just don't know if that's going to move the needle, but I also don't. that you want McDavid or Crosby killing penalties for this team either. So that's why I would just, my lean is Sorrelli. But, and again, it's for a fourth line center rule. I think he's just more of a natural fit. All right. So where do we want to put that?

Are we making a projection today or are we just having the debate? I think we're making a projection. So we're going to vote here. I'm voting Sorrelli. And so am I. Sorry, Scott. It's okay. I'll make the case.

again for Johnston over Bennett and Wilson. There's still a path. We can put centers on the way. There's still a path onto this roster for a while. I agree with that. All right. Let's go to another one. And we said six for three or six guys for three spots.

I think it is eight for four as I just as I map this all out. We got spots here taken up by McDavid Celebrini McKinnon, Marner Crosby, Suzuki, Suzuki point Hegel. That's eight guys. We need to get to 12. So we got four spots to fill. and the names we're considering again are Wyatt Johnston, Connor Bedard, Seth Jarvis, Tom Wilson, Anthony Sorrelli, Sam Bennett,

Dylan Genther. Dylan Genther. So is seven for four? And then we just did Johnston and Sorrelli kind of thing. So that was one of the spots. So Sorrelli's on the team now. All right. So Sorrelli's on our team.

Let's go next to the big guys. And the physicality of the four nations dominated a lot. of the conversation leading up to the Olympics, right? What we saw from the Kachuk brothers, what we saw from, you know, Team Canada in the U.S. in those rivalry games. And I, having seen the Olympics now, like I think it's fair to say, Scott, that the pure physicality, the brutishness, the fighting, obviously was not a huge factor in the Olympics. No.

No, it wasn't. And I will get to the USA roster after it, but I'm not even convinced if Brady Kachuk doesn't turn his play around after the way he played down the stretch with Ottawa that Brady Kachucks necessarily a lock a couple of years from now to be on Team USA. So is it a factor? Absolutely, are the games at the World Cup maybe going to play a little bit differently than the Olympics as well? That's entirely possible.

We saw that at the Four Nations. Maybe you do build your roster a little bit differently, although I do think everything will be with the Olympics in the back of your mind, even at the World Cup. But Wilson, again, another guy who's going to be in his mid-30s at that point. I'm just not sure whether the pace will be there. I'm just not sure whether he's got enough juice to make the contributions that he made this time around. He was a fine player for them in the Olympics.

Will he be a fine player for them two years from now relative to what I think Wyatt Johnson can contribute or what I think of Connor Bedard can contribute? I just don't see it. Like, you've, in Suzuki and Hegel and Sorrelli, like you've got in point. Stank of him. Even in Crosby, like you've got guys who can play at the bottom of your lineup. I like Johnston and Bader to play in a real role and be a part of this team. And frankly, I just think they're going to be better, like, not just better players, maybe significantly better players than Bennett and Wilson a year and a half from now.

The Bennett one I kind of buy, like it's going to be already, what, like three, four years removed from his consmite run. like it's like he'll need to have some really good years to be in the mix there. The Wilson one is tough because whatever you think of the player, I think he's a really good player and where he's going to be in two years. It's fair to say that in the league there's something mythical about him, right? Like it's like the same way it was with Loo Cheats throughout his career. When you have this big guy who could, who can play and who is extremely physical,

the league gravitates towards that unique profile. And, you know, you saw at the Olympics, they gave him every opportunity to succeed, you know, often playing him in the top six, even though his ice time, you know, fluctuated in the important games. I have a hard time thinking in a year and a half from now that the conversation about Wilson has changed so dramatically that. And I don't know if I would even have brought him to the Olympics, quite frankly. Like I'm not, I'm kind of like, ring with Scott. Like, I don't know if I like love this player compared to some of these other options, but I think the league does love him.

And I have a hard time not seeing him in the top 12 in whatever 18 months from now. What happens if Ryan Leonard, the two Protist brothers and Jordan Kairu all become really important parts in Washington and Wilson has a 48 or 49 point season next year instead of a 62 point season. Like, does that change the conversation for you?

No. I still think people will value the player type just so highly. So let's, let's, I still think you, there is some, there's going to be something to the hot hand and the guys who are playing their best come selection process. Like it's, so let's, let's move on Bennett here first, because it sounds like Wilson's going to be the bigger, bigger point of contention here. I think if Connor Bedard is not on this roster in a year and a half, something has gone wrong.

And especially if Sam Bennett is on it over him in a year and a half, something has gone wrong. Is that fair? I think that's fair. Here's a question. Can you bring, will, not that can you, but will they bring Suzuki, Point, Stancovin, Baddard, and Jarvis? Like that's a lot of, yeah, it's a lot of small.

Maybe not, but I think Baderd would be above Jarvis. I think Baderd is probably above Stankovan. That's my point is I think these are where the friction points are going to be. Yep. So you're saying keep Bennett and shift the conversation against one of those other guys? Well, now we're starting to build the roster out. So I think if we're doing that, then we're probably putting Wilson on the fourth line. Yep.

Right? Yep. Yep. And then you're putting one of those smaller scores on the second line. So are we putting Bader on a line with Crosby and Marner? I don't have a problem with that. I have absolutely no problem with that. So that'd be the second line.

Third line of Hegel, Suzuki, Point. Yep. I think that sounds like a great third line. And then fourth line of Sorrelli, and then I'd argue Wilson. Yep. And then who's the last one? I'd put Wyatt there over Bennett. And Stankevin would be in that conversation.

And so would Jarvis too. Yeah. So is Johnson number one there? I think Wyatt's better than all of those players. And I like the idea of having another guy who's his natural center who can take draws. My lean is Stancovin just based on just, honestly just based on his playoffs. And just how much of a dog he is, I feel like in that 10 to 11 minute and night energy role, I think he would thrive so much. I think for the skating especially.

Like that's, that would be the big different. Now, he's smaller than Johnson. And I like that is. And Johnson works. Yeah. They both work. Oh, yeah, for sure. But I just think you saw the way Stankovin competed in the playoffs.

And I think he's on a different level when it comes to his compete. I'll go with Stankov in there. And I like that fourth line of Stankovine, Sarelli, Wilson. That sounds like a national team fourth line to me. But it does suck to leave White Johnston off. I mean, do we have a 13th forward there? I'd be happy to put him in that role. I think he's an awesome player.

Yeah. And we didn't even really mention Genther, but that's the tough part of about making these national teams, right? It's like, okay, if you're bringing Genter, you're going to have to leave Brayn Point at home. You're going to have to leave Carter-Badard at home, and I don't think any of us are going to do that. Yeah, all those guys are right shots.

Yeah. It's a factor. All right, so let's- Injuries could play into it, obviously. All right, so let's go with that then. So our team Canada forward group is McDavid-Cennon, Marner-Crosby-Badard, Hagle-Sizuki-Point,

and then Stankovan, Sorrelli, Wilson. That's the Team Canada forward group. Good with that? Understanding the objection, Scott? Scott doesn't like Wilson, but yes. I'd have Wyatt probably over Wilson and Stankovin, but I'm fine with it. All right. Let's move on to the Canada defenseman here then.

A little quicker conversation here. Matthew Schaefer, Kail McCar, Josh Morrissey, Evan Bouchard, Thomas Harley. All of those went without objection. in our kind of pre-show map-out. The only big debate is Devon Taves on that of the six. And Scott, your nomination for that was Owen Power. Yeah, I just think Taves is another guy like Wilson. He's going to be, what, 35 two years from now.

I think Tavis' role has largely been tied to Kail McCar, and I think the emergence of Matthew Schaefer will likely mean that Matthew Schaefer and Kail McCar are a D-paring. And I just think Owen Power is better than people realize. I think he's going to take a step next year. I think we saw it really in the back half of this season with his play, that he was, it's coming for him. I know he hasn't always been as competitive or as hard as you want to guide that size to be.

But Owen Power is a phenomenal NHL defenseman, and I think they are going to want him to be a part of the Hockey Canada mix. And I do wonder if, if Taves is 35 for the World Cup and you're looking ahead to the Olympics, and then suddenly he's 37, I wonder about bringing an Owen power for a third pairing role over a guy like Taubes for that reason. It's a good point. And it's something that I think about with both of these rosters.

I wonder, will the management groups for both USA and Canada view the World Cup as an end in itself, like the thing worth going everything at? Or is it viewed as like a kind of a lab and seeing testing some things for the 2030 Olympics? And I genuinely don't know, Corey, which way to view that. I think if it's a gap, if there's a gap, you're in win now, right? but are Taves and power close? Like are they? Well, and this is kind of the argument you made about his ice time.

Regardless of my car. If you look at how they use Tays in the Olympics, I would guess Team Canada doesn't think this is even particularly close because I think he was what their second leading defenseman in ice time at the tournament. So like to go from there to not on the team altogether, that would be a pretty drastic drop. And I'm not sure his play in the NHL has warranted it.

Now, the question is whether in two years things, have changed that much. Like I would guess, I agree with Scott that I think they're going to have to bump him off the McCar pair for Schaefer at some point here. I just don't know if he goes all the way from one of their most important players to not on the team in two seasons. What did you guys think of Travis Sandheim? Corey, I'll start with you here.

What did you think of Travis Sandheim at the Olympics? And, I mean, he's not a name that came up in our pre-show prep. I thought he was you know solid fine enough I don't think like he like move the needle for me okay because I mean when I look at this on profile I do think you're still looking for a true penalty kill guy here

and I don't know the power is that either yeah and I thought about the way putting it together because you have McCar you have Schaefer who's an amazing skater and I think when he's 23 24 25 will be an elite elite elite defender, but you wonder in two years from now if he's a shutdown guy against the best USA Sweden players.

You have Bouchard, who obviously is not that. You have Morrissey, who I don't think, who I think is that either. Yeah, but you're right, but there's no, like, we didn't mention Perico, we didn't Sanheim, like, that's why I think TAY still has a spot in this lineup, because

he at least provides him of that defense there. It's a tough, and like, I think we all didn't raise objections to Bouchard being there. But it wouldn't surprise me if he's not in the starting six, quite frankly, just for all the reasons you just stated. I think Bouchard's the only player within that group of six who you don't want on a penalty kill at a best on best event, though.

Like, McCar can penalty kill, Morrissey can penalty kill, Harley can penalty kill, power could penalty kill. I think by then you're comfortable with Schaefer penalty killing at that level. Like, I don't think there's a shortage of PKKers there. Bouchard's not penalty killing for you, but. I think they can penalty kill. I don't know if they're going to excel in that, nor do I think are they going to excel in like being shut down guys against

like, you know, the best, best of best players in the world. It's also those are like the hardest minutes, most taxing minutes you can ask someone to play. And I do think that there is a tradeoff. If you're going to ask Kal McCar and Matthew Schaefer to do that, you're going to get less of them,

less from them at five on five by doing so. And that's where like, that's what I see. Like Sanheim is probably the name that I'm finding myself. wanting to argue for here. And that would put us in. But then who do you bring home? But then who do you leave at home? Like, are you leaving Bouchard at home for Sandheim?

Like, that's a big talent drop off. It does feel extreme. That does feel extreme. So I don't know. It's, it's, I think that's one where we kind of see where these guys are two years from now. Like, where is Morsi two years from now? Where is Bouchard two years from now?

Like, do they maintain this level of play? Because if they are, it's hard to leave them at home. But if they drop off a little bit, then maybe you kind of find an excuse to bring one of those, you know, more well-rounded players. Yeah. So, all right, so where are we going to land on this then? Because I think between Taves and power, I think I lean to Taves, but like, I don't know that Taves is really the exact kind of player I'm talking about either,

even though he, again, he's another one that, like, can do it. But are you, like, going into a tournament? Do you want to leave Harley at home then for one of those guys? I was just about to ask the same question about Harley. Like, maybe, maybe it's Harley for, and we haven't even talked. None of us have raised Chickren either, but Chickren was excellent. excellent last like i could see chikrin or power in the in the mix over a harley potentially i do think harley's going to bounce back i do i do based on his last year he would be the one to cut

um it wasn't like a wow year for him by any means i do think he's going to bounce back though so i don't know but it's yeah that that's one one way to do this yes do we want to maybe just keep tays and put parakel back on for for harley scott's not going to want parakego right scott You're the tiebreaker, Max. My lean is to go to Sanheim, but if you guys are no interest in that. I'll go Sanheim then. So yeah, let's do Taye Sanheim as a six. And leave Harley home.

Are you okay with Scott doesn't like this at all? I don't like it about. We're bullying this poor guy right now. I know. He's like, where's Chris Peters? Yeah, yeah. If it's Harley versus Sanheim, I'm just taking Harley, I think. Okay.

Well, then would you leave Harley Taves? Is that if that's the compromise then? All right. We'll leave Harley Taves. All right. We went in a big circle there. When power makes the team, though, I want to remember this conversation. Very fair.

Very fair. Then the last one's in goal. We have Bittington and Kemper. I'm not going with Binnington here, Corey. Like, Scott's suggestions are Greaves and Thompson. But, like, I know Binnington's track record in two more years. I can't imagine. It's still there.

Hoffer played more games last year. I think Hoffer's going to be their guy by the end of this season. You're not bringing a backup goalie with his own organization as the starting. And he'll be, he's going to, we've been talking about a couple of guys who are going to be 35. I think he's going to be 37 two years from now. Like, I just, I know they love him. I know he's been good for them in a couple of really big games at multiple, at two different events. He was terrible in the NHL last year.

Like, I just see zero path for him. I think it, and they, they clearly like Greaves. Like, they clearly have. time for Greaves. I think Thompson and Greaves feel like they'll be the guys for me. I just think the Binningtons and the Kemper's and those guys are going to going to sort of gradually be aged out here. I don't really have strong opinions on this one. What do you want to do, Max? I think Thompson over Bennington is the switch I would make. I'm fine with Kemper. Like, Greaves, I think, has a chance to get there, but I do have a hard time. Grieves's numbers are phenomenal. Like, among the best in the

week over the last couple of years. Yeah, he'll be two years older. Like, he'll have a, he's going be the starter in Columbus next year. With everything on the line, do you see Canada going with a 6-0 goalie with his short of track record as he has? If he's the backup to Thompson, I don't see why you don't give him an opportunity to get into some games and get ready for the Olympics potentially. You have to find that next guy. And I'm not convinced that any of the young Canadian goalies are going to be there come

four years from now at the Olympics either. Like it's going to be a Greaves type that they have to go to. I think Thompson's the one for me, and I don't really have a strong feeling between Kemper and Greaves for the two. Yeah, I'll give, we can just give Scott Greaves that's so passionate about it as the two. He was due. Appreciate it. All right, let's now go to the reigning Olympic gold medalist, Corey, Team USA. And if Canada's in an interesting position and how they go with their roster, USA, you could argue, is an even more interesting position.

They took a philosophy that took some heat. They left some really talented. scores and offensive players at home, they come back with a gold medal. It did not always look that convincing. And I think that puts them in a really interesting spot here. The age of these players, I think, is a key factor here, though, because there's a lot of guys who were in their prime then still going to be squarely in their prime two years from now and even four years from now. Yeah, given that they won and given the age of a lot of their players, I don't expect that this roster is going to see significant turnover two years from now.

I think it's going to be 80, 90 percent, the same players that we saw at the Olympics will be at the World Cup. There will be, you know, one, two, three, four spots up for mix, maybe one D spot, maybe. And then you put, and then maybe a backup goalie spot. And that's probably it, I think. So let's start with the forwards here. The guys that we agree on as returners, Jack Hughes, Jack Eichael, Matt Boldie, Matthew Cichuk, Austin Matthews, Brady Cichuk, Jake Gensel, and Dylan Larkin. Those are the guys that were, those are the eight that we're locking in.

That leaves four spots. With the caveat that Brady better play better for me. I think he's more likely to be the captain of his team than to be cut from it. I disagree. That's totally fair. I get it. He did not have a good finish down the stretch. And the thing that freaked me out, by the way, just as a tangent,

did you see the clip of, like, his vision going? That scared the crap out of me when you saw that. Did you see that late in the season? Look it up. It's wild. All right. Let's go to the first debate here. Let's talk about the two returning guys that I think people are going to be the most fired up about.

Brock Nelson and J.T. Miller. These guys were good players. They played their roles. They were controversial picks for the Olympic team. But they're going to be two more years older. and the mobility, I think, in Miller's case, was already getting to be an issue. Nelson, I think is going to be, what, 35 by this World Cup? Yeah.

Nelson, the Miller won, I could see him. I think that's one that I can see the argument to move on from. Nelson's going to be tough because I thought, one, he was quite good at the Olympics. He had a really good NHL season. And I thought he did a really good job filling that role. So the question is, if you're not bringing him, who's going to be out there? there that will, I guess, be better in that role down the middle. Shane Pinto.

He moves better than Pinto, though, doesn't he? I would disagree. And I think Pinto... I'm... I also a good skater, but I... I think Pinto's an equal already defensively, and by then will be... Like, Shane Pinto was on my Selky ballot this year. Like, I think Shane Pinto's one of the best defensive centers in the league.

He's a good player. Like, I like him. I think he's a perfect foresee. Yeah. He took the toughest quality of competition in the NHL last season as well. Shane Pinto did. And so for him to get really strong two-way results, he's kind of the big body. To me, he's your future, Brock Nelson.

And I think slotting him in that 4C spot does make a lot of sense, Scott. So what do you want to do? Do you want to keep Nelson or put Pinto in mex? I want to put Pinto in. All right. We didn't mention him in the locks, but I don't think any of us raised any contestant that Logan Cooley has to be somewhere on this team. Well, he's not a returner, but yes.

He's one of the guys that we penciled in, and I think he makes a ton of sense, too. And he could ultimately be an option at 4C for this team. I think he can play that kind of game. But yeah, we've got him penciled in. Or maybe by then he's your 3C and Larkins your 4C, right? There's flexibility there. I think we like him on the wing, too,

just because of the speed he has. You can go out and get him. So then we leave that one point. spot on the four we're going to get to the third line because the third line it will be a really interesting conversation but the fourth line then we have one more spot here um so we're i think j t miller will be out and then which of these other guys are in i think we're talking about nyes we're talking about baneers talking about leonard is there any preference for any of those among that group for us i think from the names that we've just said

my lean is nize but i don't but i think it's really close i feel similarly i want to see what Ryan Leonard looks like in a year and a half, obviously, but that's not the benefit we have today. Yeah, I think it's between those two. I could also, I would throw, I could imagine Jackson Blake in that kind of a role if he continues to take steps here. Like, I could imagine Jackson as a fourth liner, but I would lean, I would probably lean Nyes. I'm certainly, like, I'm out on Miller two years from now. Yeah, I want a heavy player who, yes, can score, and I think both Nyes and and Leonard can score, but also is just going to be really committed to their role. And everything I've seen from both Nyes and Leonard suggests that that's them. Nyes is a little more proven

today. That's where I would lean to him as well, Corey. But I want to leave the door open for Ryan Leonard. I mean, Benares was the other kind of name. We kicked around. And, you know, it's possible. He might even, in a year and a half, we might be talking about him the same way. We're talking about Pinto and for that spot. But my lean, I think, would be right now for Nyes. Okay, so we've got coolly nyes centered by Pinto as our fourth line. Yep, which I think is a good, very good line. So then we have a third line right now

with Larkin in between Gensel and question mark. And that question mark, I think, has a lot of options. Cutter-Gotié, Cole Coffield, Jason Robertson, Kyle Connor, Clayton Keller, maybe even Jackson Blake. A lot of really good American forwards out there. to pick from, I didn't even mention Trevor Ziegress. My lean is Cutter Goce, the six three guy who can wheel, who scored 40 goals.

I would guess that's what they would pick too. But for that one spot, what would you guys go with? I think you have to find a way for one of those three sort of really, really productive players to be on. I would probably lean any of Coffield, Roberts, Connor and would probably lean Coffield before Robertson and Connor. Those are three of the four. If you look at the NHL scoring table last year, the top four scoring Americans were

Jack Eichael, Cole, Coffield, Jason Robertson, and Kyle Connor. And there's a scenario here where we have one of the four highest scoring Americans in the NHL last year actually on the roster and three of them not on the roster. Well, that was the case at the Olympics. Yeah. Connor's gone a couple of kicks of the can here and he's kind of failed every, every time. So like I kind of have a hard time seeing him get another top nine spot. I would I would lean Caulfield over Gotea personally. I will also add like I think Alex Debrinket can

get into that conversation too, especially if we're going to talk about Jackson Blake. Like DeBrinke's got much more of a of a tenacity to his game than I think people realize 40 goal score, 85 point player. He's only going to be 30 years old at this tournament. He's another one that I would raise. But of the names you said, Scott, like it to me, Cawfield is the one because of the skating. We also saw like, I mean, look, the three-on-three wizard, that did come into play in the Olympics and that they could have used them at multiple occasions. They don't have a ton of flank guys on the power play here either. Like Jack Hughes runs it, obviously, but they've got a lot of bigger guy, like their power play is going to have the kachucks who are more net front

bumper guys. I do think Caulfield on the flank on one of those two power plays is an asset on top of what I think he can contribute offensively at five-on-five. All right. So, let's go with Coffield. And there's built-in chemistry with Hughes and some of these guys as well. Yeah. And that would actually be an interesting thing is do you actually end up having to kind of rearrange the lines? Because I think that would be something to potentially take advantage of. But let's go with Coffield then, Scott, if you're in support of that. Yeah, I like that too. All right. Moving on to the defenseman for Team USA. OTA can be our 13th, our imaginary 13th for it. imaginary 13th, yes.

Moving on to the defenseman here, Corey, you mentioned at the age early on. That's very true on the defense here, because you still got prime age Quinn Hughes. You still got a prime age Zach Wrenski, a rising into his prime Jake Sanderson, a rising into his prime Brock Favor and a prime age Charlie McAvoy.

I have a hard time seeing any of those guys not on this roster. I have a hard time seeing any of those guys not on the 2030 roster, and that really only leaves one spot on the blue line. And that's kind of where this debate it's interesting because you look at Jacob Slavin's age and you're like he's the one guy who could theoretically age out but will he given that he's been very good for them in the last two tournaments

that he was very you know just won a Stanley Cup now the name I nominated was Keandre Miller because I thought in that playoff run I thought Miller was just as good as Slaven if not better but there is a body of work to consider there and I think it makes for a very fascinating debate. I think you leaned towards Slaven, Max, correct? Yes, I would just go with the proven thing. And we'll see what happens as he ages, if the body, if he loses a step. But to me, I look at Jacob Slaven as a gold standard defensive defenseman in this league. He's been there, done that. He was an important player for them. I have a hard time taking him off. I think it's reasonable to keep him, too. You know who was also really good in the playoffs?

Lane Hudson. Look, I get it. Wayne Hudson is already. Kandre Miller was a really nice story last year, had a really good year. I do wonder if Kiannre Miller is a true best-on-best player. Lane Hudson is a better hockey player, a significantly better hockey player and had a significantly better year than Jacob Slavin and Kiannre Miller. If I was picking a number one defenseman for an NHL team, I would take Lane Hudson at this point. But we're picking the sixth defenseman on the Olympic team. Who says he has to be the sixth defenseman? Why can't Brock Faber play on the third pair. It's going to be tough to take a guy who plays a top 4D on your gold medalist,

and now he's two years older. It's not tough when that player is Wayne Fing Hudson. Like he's, we're talking about a world class. We're talking about already one of the best players in the world. Scott, you know who also had a really good playoffs? Jackson LaCome, who Team USA has already picked over Lane Hudson for an international team duty once. He did have a great playoffs.

I don't think we realize how good Dwayne Hudson was last year. We do. We do. Yeah. The issue is if this, if Quinn Hughes, you know, hurts his knee or whatever kind of thing, and then Hudson's goes, he's the guy. He goes right in kind of thing. But I think on a team that already has, whatever, you know, Matthews, the Hughes, the Kuchucks,

Rewedsky, if you bring Hudson, is he on the first power play unit? No. I think he's in the mix. I'm asking you. Who's your first power player? I'm not saying it's the decision I'd make, but there is an argument to be made that Lane Hudson is a more dynamic power play

quarterback quarterback quarterback than Quinn Hughes, especially if you want to free up Quinn Hughes to play more at 5 and 5. and answer the dead question. Who's the top power play? I'll make the case for Lane Hudson over Quinn Hughes. Okay, well, I think that's crazy. But anyways.

It's hard for me to see. He's awesome. How is that crazy? This Quidd uses one Norris trophy. Well, one of Norris trophy, sorry. It's not even just the hard words. And he can play his hard out on PP2 and play a ton of minutes at five on five. That's like, that's going too far.

Like, Lane's awesome. He has, he has exceeded so many people's expectations, including mine. He's an amazing defense. But I think you can definitely make the case from him as a top 10D in the league, in the league. But in this role, like, I don't see how I can put him. He's not over Quinn Hughes, for one. For power play? I'm not talking about in terms of the minutes you're playing him

over the course of a 60-minute game. So do you think Quinn Hughes isn't going on the power play? There's three, no, Quinn Hughes can be on the power play. He can be on PP1. He can be on PP2. The top three power play quarterbacks in the league are Kail McCar, Lane Hudson, and Quinn Hughes. Like those are the three guys.

Quinn Hughes just won you a gold medal. So why are you going away from him? Because Lane Hudson is, the most dynamic player at that position. More than McCaum, more than Hughes? In the conversation. Okay, that's not what you said. But you, okay, so you guys talk about PK,

you don't want, you don't want your top guys on the PK because you need them more at five on five. Why not have Quinn Hughes on P.P.2 so that you can use him more. Because the P.P. is not taxing like the PK is. The PK is taxing because you're playing defense all the time. You're running around chasing.

You're taking shots to the legs. Do you think there's a, Big gap between Quinn Hughes and Lane Hudson on the power play? I think Quinn Hughes is probably the best defenseman in the NHL, period. I agree. I think once they get set up in the zone, they're similar, but I think Hughes's skating is like way better. And his ability to gain the zone, I think is way better.

But I think once they're in the zone and they have the puck on their stick, then it gets real close. I fully get how much it sucks for Lane Hudson to be a top 10 defender in the league and not make the top six for his own country. country, but it's because of role deployment. It's not because he's better than Charlie McAvoy as a number one defenseman in the NHL. Just tell Montreal when they play Columbus, when they play Minnesota, just go after Wawesi. Just go after Hughes.

Just take one of them out and he's in. Like, that's basically how it's going to work. Like, it's all moot to me because I'm sticking with Slavin. Like, it's like this is like my conversation is just I'm sticking with Slavin in that role. Right. And like, let's go back to. I just can't believe we got to a point where we're debating Quinn Hughes as. the number one power pole quarterback.

Let's get away from the philosophical. By the end of next year, Lane Hudson might be a top five defenseman in the league instead of a top 10. He might be. Let's get away from the philosophical debate for a second. Let's talk about what USA will actually do. Scott, do you think USA will bring Lane

if Hughes and Rewenski are available? If they're in the top six. If they're thinking about the Olympics, I think, and you're talking about Jacob Slavin versus Lane Hudson, I think you absolutely have to bring Lane Hudson. That's why I brought it up earlier, because if you're viewing this as a lab and as a training ground and an experimentation thing, this is the perfect environment to test Scott's theory.

But if you view this as an end in itself, that I think you're bringing Jacob Slavin. Yeah, I just wonder if the same team that didn't bring Fox is going to do that. It's basically going to be the same management group probably, like plus or minus one or two guys. So I do wonder about that. If Lane Hudson was Canadian, he'd be their number. he'd be, you know, he'd be on their top four, no doubt. He's in there over Bouchard, you know, McCar's still there, so I think McCar's still probably powerplay one.

But he's in their top four, no doubt. But it's like, I have a hard time seeing him over Hughes, who I think is the best in the NHL, and Wrenski, who's the rating Norris winner, and just set up the golden goal in the Olympics. I really just have a hard time seeing how he takes it from either of them. I don't. Yeah.

But to your point earlier now, like, about Slavin, Conjian Miller, they were both 25, 26 minute night guys, on a team that just won the Stanley Cup, and Slavin just won you a gold medal. So I'm not going away from Slavin. That's like that's where I'm staying. So despite all this.

I don't think it's inconceivable that Lane Hudson has it. Eric Carlson 100 point season at some point in the next three or four years. And I think that like if that happened next year, if Lane Hudson had 95 to 100 points next year, there's no way. And he's young. And you're looking ahead to not just net the next Olympics, but even the Olympics after that.

Like I think you're crazy. You're crazy, crazy, crazy. crazy not to take him. Yeah. It's conceivable. I agree. I don't disagree that it's possible that he can do that, but he hasn't done it. And I'm not going to put him over guys who have done it and continue to do it because he might do it.

What do you mean he hasn't done it? He was one of the best players in the playoffs and finished. You just said it's conceivable. He's Eric Carlson 100 points. He hasn't done that yet. He still just had one of the best seasons in the league. Yes. No one's denying that.

You're arguing with a wall here. Like, I'm not denying that he's awesome. I'm denying that he's better than quit. Hues. No, you're denying that he's better than six guys. No, I'm not. I'm denying that he's better for the number six role than a couple guys. Why not play Brock Faber on the third pairing?

You can. If you're obsessed about... You can. I think Faber's a little overrated. You argued him on PP1. Yeah. I think Faber's... Pee 1, PP2.

Why don't play him 60 minutes a night then? Why don't just bring one Hudson and play him every position on the ice? No. There is something. to playing him on the power plate and freeing up one of Werenski or Hughes to play more at five on five. Like, I don't know why that's viewed is. I disagree that the power play is the place to sacrifice from. Like, you want to protect your stars from the PK because it's grueling. I think you're upgrading potentially. You keep doing that. You keep saying it and then

walking it back. Like, you're upgrading potentially. He's there in the conversation. Like, we have to make a decision here. Is it Quinn Hughes or is it Lane Hudson on PP1? It's Quinn Hughes. How is it not? I think it could be. I think it could be Lane Hudson. And if it's not, it's Lane on PP2. Like, Lane's better than Zach on for PP2. But that's where the conversation gets tricky.

It's why Jason Robertson and Cole Caulfield got let home. It's like you, a guy who's second power play and gets 8 to 10, even strength minutes is not a really valuable role on a national team. Those, and whether you disagree with that is not, it's kind of irrelevant. Because if you look at the history of how

these teams get constructed, Guys don't get brought on to these teams to play that type of role. If you're going to play 10 to 12 even straight minutes of night, he has to be on first power play. At this point, I want to see it just because I want to see it and settle this debate. Like, I'm sick of having this hypothetical where we get to pretend like you get to, you know, have it every which way. Like, I just want to see it now. I'm going to vote for Hudson because I just want to see it. Maybe you put 2D on one of the power plays.

And why can't, Lane, why can't you bring Lane Hudson and have Lane Hudson playing 12 minutes a night? and break open a gold medal game playing against softer competition. Why would you not want that on your roster? Wait, wait. A gold medal game against softer competition? Against the third pairing or fourth line of a team Canada? Yeah, that's softer competition. The soft competition that we just picked for Team Canada was, who was Anthony Sorrelli,

Logan Stankovan, and who was the third forward here? You don't think Lane Hudson can cook those guys on any given shift? I have a hard time calling it soft competition, and I have a hard time saying anyone's cooking those guys. You want players who can win their matchups, who can make a play to break open a game. Yeah, I think it's... Don't disagree with that.

Then why... Yeah. Why isn't Lane Hudson that guy for you? Okay, so you get... No matter what the minutes... I feel like we got... I feel like we went off track here. He plays 28, 29 minutes a night for a contending playoff.

team. Yeah. So do everyone that we've mentioned. Well. Not 28 minutes because they're forwards. Yeah. And yeah, I'm not sure of every single one that's on a contender.

But I get what you're saying. Well, Sorelli, Wilson, like the guys he's talking about is the soft competition. Yeah. Or the guys that we're directly comparing him to, like Slavin.

Like that's a pretty good team that he's on. Let's go backwards here. Because again, the exercise, which I think we've kind of maybe lost this. Yeah. predictably got derailed by the name we always get predictably derailed by. Is predicting,

predicting what team USA will actually do. Now, I think I kind of agree with Scott that I think Faber might be getting a little overrated and he probably got like, you know, elevated because of who the manager was there. And because he also played really well, particularly in that four nations.

I didn't think his Olympics, he was as good as the four nations, but he still was very good. Like, yeah, you could argue that is he one of the four best American defense? defenseman, I mean, if you're doing a player ranking, he's not. In the NHL he is. In the NHL he is.

Again, you're doing so Hughes, Rowensky, and then is he above Hudson for you? He's, Hudson and Sanders. I think I'd go Sanderson next is three, and then Hudson would be the fourth best NHL defenseman there. So, but I say, you don't think he's one of the top four USA defensemen. He would be the probably going to be a top. Yeah. Yeah, favor, yes.

But he's probably the top four on this team, in part because he's a right shot. and just to do how well he played on the national team. But yeah, we could see him get bumped down to the third pair. But I still think you're putting, like I said, I think I'm with you, Max. I can see they are going to keep slaving unless he really falls off in the next year or two. If you wanted to do.

And then Sanderson. And then are we leaving, like, you know, who am I missing here exactly? Like, you're, you know, are we cutting favor? or you're cutting Sanderson for Hudson, as those are tough for me to do. I'm not cutting them. I would just have it be Hughes,

McAvoy-Warenski-Faber, Sanderson, Hudson, and not bring Slavin or Miller. But why would you not want a pair like Slavin-Sanderson? Like in this kind of tournament? Why not just have that third pair be Faber-Sanderson? And so then you play Hughes, Maccough, and then you play Hughes, McAvoy, Werenski, and Hudson in your top four.

So the second pair would be Werenzky and Hudson? Yep. And then Hughes and McAvoy. For a pair that's going to play that many minutes, I just would rather have, like Werenzky already brings so many of the elements Hudson does. I would just want the guy who's a killer, defender. And that's Sanderson or Fabor.

Maybe you play Sanderson in the top four then. So maybe it's Hughes, McAvoy, Werencki, Sannerson, and it's Faber and Hudson as your third pairing. So let's keep in mind for everyone who's listening. we're using NHL lineup criteria for this one because it's the World Cup. If this was a double IHF competition and we could bring both Slavin and Hudson, this would be a much easier conversation. But we're trying to fit seven into six here.

But if we got seven choices, I feel like this would have been a much shorter conversation. Yeah, very much. And then Rangers fans would have been yelling at us about Adam Fox. What a memory that is when that was the debate. What are you leaning mex? We can go Hudson Faber as the third pair. That's an acceptable compromise to me.

I feel like I'm convinced Scott yelled loud enough. I don't think there's ever been an F-Bob dropped on this show. So Max might have had a first there. Won't be the last. Like I could see the argument that Hudson is going to be like in his prime then. And Slavin's probably going to be like Slavins, probably still going to be really, really good. But maybe it starts to, the skating starts to slow down there a little bit.

Like I just think is like Maccavoys health, I guess is like like yeah McAvoy may have even not be on this group because of his health yeah but he's still think all situation stud so yes yeah yeah he'll be on the team all right so I'm good with Hughes McAvoy Wrenzke-Sanderson Hudson Faber I can live with that one I do think that that NHL people but I'm not putting them on PP1 yeah that's I think I think NHL people will look at the two blue lines we constructed for Canada and USA and say that's not what's going to happen. Because I think we gravitated more towards offense and the point producing puck movers and how we constructed it. And I'm guessing one or two of those guys that

we think are for sure on that team or not for sure on that team. I also think you're just talking Yeah. I think you're talking about two completely different calibers of blue lines as well. Like this American group is not. It's just how we ended up. getting there despite different ways. I just think with Canada you run out of names a little bit sooner. Like those guys are just on because they're the best players, whereas the best players might not be on for Team USA, which is the conversation, frankly, that we've just spent 20 minutes having.

It's kind of funny because Canada's probably as a better team, I think, on paper, but their blue line is like, just not as convincing. Yeah. I think it's why USA won. Like, I know that everyone wants to make it all about Hellebuck, but I do think, and I know Canada got their shots, they missed some. chances but i think when you have a blue line like that you always give yourself a chance to win any kind of game speaking of which USA goalies oh god I thought we were done

hella buck's going to be taking his walker into the net I think you can't go away from him no it's going to be hell buck even at whatever he'll be what 35 hellobucks I went on it well we could just recap this because we know where we're going to say auditors to you two two said swayman. We're going to go swayman as the two. Yeah, Swamen is the two for me. All right. Thanks, Corey, for wrapping that up. Lovely conversation. Great job, guys. Scott, I love you. It was never personal. Yeah, back at you, pal. All right. That's going to do it for us. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Epitococchi Show Prospect series. We'll back with you for more soon.