The Athletic Hockey Show - Which 2025 NHL Draft forwards are most intriguing?

Episode Date: May 16, 2025

It’s officially mock draft season with a draft order set and the 2025 NHL Draft quickly approaching. Today, the guys audit Corey and Scott’s latest mocks, including Anton Frondell going to the Blackhawks at No. 3 on both lists. Plus, how factoring in potential playoff performance would shake up the first round rankings, how far James Hagens could fall if he doesn’t go first overall, and why Roger McQueen is one of the most fascinating prospects in the class.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 Prondman and Flow Hockey's Chris Peters for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Got a loaded show on tap today. We're going to be talking about Scott and Corey's mock drafts. We're going to be talking about Roger McQueen, the upside, the risk, one of the most interesting players in this class and what is a very interesting forward group. But let's start with the mock drafts, guys. Scott and Corey, you've both had time now to do your individual mock drafts. And one thing I noticed right off the top, Corey, both of you have Anton Frundel at number three to Chicago. I thought that was very interesting considering coming out of the World U-18 tournament. We were at. Frundel was not one of the big stories of that tournament.

If anything, I would have thought maybe stocked down, but you both have them at number three. Yeah, I think with Fondell, if you went into that tournament, at least talking to people in the league and you had some reservations about him. You wondered whether this was truly an elite offensive player, whether he was just a really nice, well-rounded centerman. You left that tournament, and those biases were reinforced, and you kind of thought, no, this is a six to ten guy. He's not a premier player in this draft.

But the people who I've talked to, and I think this is the bigger camp in the league, who think view it as a top five pick, top three pick potentially, their opinion wasn't really swayed by the U-18s. They thought, just a couple of games there. He comes in late there at the end. The body of work,

what he did versus men this year was still too impressive, still a really talented centerman with a lot of offensive upside, with a lot of, you know, details, a competitive physical centerman with decent size. I think he's still got a really good chance to be a top five pick in this year's draft.

I think with all those teams picking, you know, three to six, he's going to be on the short list for a lot of them, whatever, three to six, three of seven, two to seven, whatever range you want to put there. I think he's in all their conversations. And I expect, even after his mediocre U-18s, I haven't heard his stock has taken a major hit in the league. I think what's interesting when you think about Frundel's U-18s, people will ask, well, what are some examples of players who had really bad U-U-8? U-18s that end up becoming great players. And I think the immediate comparable you think of is David Posternock, who did not have a good world at all for Czechia, but has some similarities in the tremendous production against men in the Al-Sfenskin.

And obviously, we know what happens immediately after he goes in the 20s. He comes to the American League the year after, just tears it up in the American League. He's in the NHL and, and, you know, and on and on it goes to. him becoming a fantastic NHL player. And then another one that comes to mind is Martin Nettches. He also had a very poor U-18s after a successful

overall season, including playing well against men, played for the World Juniors for Czechia, played well there, and then just ends on a poor note. People pick apart his competitiveness, his compete, his consistency, he goes lower, he comes a great player.

The difference between those cases for me is that Nettches went in the teens, Pass when I'm at the 20s and we're talking about taking Frondell, whatever, three, four, five overall. For me, if I was in that position,

I would want to be absolutely sure. This is the guy. I have no questions that he is going to be a premier NHL player and I thought at least he's begged some questions at times this year. Never mind, at just the 18th and April,

we're not talking about three or four, games. His November 5 Nations wasn't very good. His World Junior Ray Challenge was good, not great. As February 5 Nations, I thought he was very good some nights, but some nights also, he wasn't amazing. So I do have some questions, but the sense I'm getting is the league does not share those reservations to a significant extent. Worth noting, too, that he was actually more productive in El Svenskin than players like Pastronach, than players like William Neelander. Like, it's not like the offense hasn't been there ever. Certainly, at the international level, it's come and gone. He's had some really high moments. We've talked on the show before about the February 5

Nations of a full year ago and the impact that he had there. And that's sort of being the start of this conversation about him as a top talent in this draft class. But the production in Al Spenskin this year, after dealing with an injury in the fall, was still very, very impressive for a player his age. And the year prior to that, he dominated the J20 level, which is the level that most of his peers in this very strong Swedish age group were still playing at this year, still putting the kind of production together this year that he had a full year prior. I think that, talking specifically about Chicago, that plus the size element, we've talked a lot about Chicago having a ton of 510, 511 speedy forwards.

He adds a little bit of size to that mix. They took Sasha Blavere a year ago for the same reason. Suddenly you've got a little bit more size down the middle. I think that that's part of the dynamic in terms of the conversation that specifically the Blackhawks will be having about Frundel as we approach the draft here in the combine and all the rest. But it cannot be overstated. He was very productive. He has shown legit offense this year and last year ago at the J20 level. Absolutely. His production is closer to Pedersen than it is to Nylander and in Pasturenik, at least at the same age, although he

didn't quite play quite as many games as someone like Pedersen. Did he? And obviously then at the playoffs there, I thought his ice time went down there with the, with, with the Yorgon. One thing to note, though, in terms of the international production, too, I actually think against the UA teenage group, I think its production last year was actually better than, on a per game basis than it was this season, which, again, you know, it's all about the body of work.

There's been real big highs, there's been some moderates, but it's, you know, I think you can look at the data different ways and come to different conclusions. There have been times when I've been putting together drafts of my list, not the published ones you've seen. There have been times when I've been putting drafts on my list together, and he's been at two. And I felt like, okay, this guy is the next big thing.

He could be a first light centerman, two-way. And then you watch some other games. They're like, I think he should be eight or nine. And I've never put him at any of those extremes. But depending on what games you've watched, like, oh, man, his best games this year. He looked unreal. Like, you look like a potential star. So I think it'll be fascinating to see where he ends up.

Well, and Chris, it's not like there's a whole lot of certainty in this class where you could say, oh, how could you, pass on this guy for front. Maybe Caleb Denoye, but then there's the whole Q factor that I think, you know, we're trying to not beat up on the queue too much here, but we've been fooled before. Well, yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of different things to consider, and one of them being the relative strength of the class when, you know, I think that we talk about Schaefer and Mesa, and then we kind of look at this group of players. And I don't think it's been fully fleshed out, just how tight that group is in terms of, you know, whether it's, you know, Hagan's being the superior

playmaker or, you know, or, you know, Martone being the biggest or, you know, but being a wing. Dainoea having a little bit more versatility. And then you have this situation with Frundel where we got a body of work against pros that suggests, you know, high-end capability. You look at the guys that he's outproduced at this level, as Scott mentioned. And, you know, you look at different and things like whatever, NHLE or anything else if in terms of those kinds of things, which you should always take with a grain of salt and certainly not use as a picture, but like his is among the highest of the draft class in terms of, you know, the correlation of production.

So to me, I think, you know, if you're particularly Chicago in this instance, you know, you've got to take all of that into consideration and you say, okay, well, is he, does he have the potential to be the number two center behind Connor Bedard? If we move Badard to the wing, does he have a chance to, you know, to make that a better, you know, could he be a number one center even? And I think it's definitely hard to project. But, you know, going back to just day and OIA, I think that is probably the other guy that if I'm Chicago, I'm looking at pretty closely in terms of, you know, those where I'm at,

it's more between him and then say Hagan's because of the reason that we talked about. You know, you can't have a forward group with so many sub six foot players, those kinds of things. but I do think, you know, in terms of Danae, he's had some experience outside of the queue. He was very strong at the CHL and TDP Prospects game for me. You know, I think that last year we saw little glimpses of him at the under 18 worlds. He's got some other international exposure, which helps. And I think for him, it's more style of play. The fact that he's a top player on one of the top teams is big.

So those are the guys that I think if you're Chicago, you should have that conversation. Judging by my mentions and different appearances and other things in Chicago, it seems like Martone is the people's choice, which we talked about last time we were all together. Like, it just, that's not an organizational fit, you know, in terms of style of play and kind of the way that they've drafted. So could it be sure? But, I mean, I think that, you know, Frondell seems to be more in line with their philosophies and certainly a guy that I think has the, of that group, the highest potential. to be a star player among that group. Yeah, I mean, I love Marconne, but the skating risk there is real.

And I've compared him to Philip Borsberg. But there's a chance, I think. There's a real chance he's just like Capoaca with like this big body frame. He competes hard. He's not like a super physical skill, but it's not earth-shattering skill. Like there's definitely some risk he misses there. And you're right.

That hasn't been what Chicago is targeted. one thing I thought of with Fondell too is I think he has arguably the best shot in the draft. Like the one-timers he scores, you know, some of the goals he scored at the international level this year. Like the way he can score from the dots is pretty elite. And I'm kind of envisioning him on Chicago's power plays. I think he excels from that right face-off dot launching one-timers. And I kind of, and I think, I know Badaard's in the NHL has scored more assist than goals, but we've always kind of envisioned him as a potential 40, 50 goal score in the NHL.

Doesn't mean you can't have two shooters of the power play, but there is only one puck. And I do wonder how that would stylistically fit. I don't think you should take that into account when drafting players, but I'm just more musing about how that power play would look and who's the facilitator and who does the power play flow through. Not that I think, I mean, I say that, but I think if they picked Dinoje, I don't think he's playing the flank on a power play. I think maybe he's a first power play, like net front guy.

Like, I don't think he's a true PP1 guy in the NHL who's putting up major, major points. Probably a 50 to 65 type of guy, I think, even though I do think there's offense there. That's not really the calling card of his game. I think if you're drafting, if you pick Frontel 2, 3, 4, you're going to think he's a 70-point center in the NHL. Whether that happens or not, that's the projection. day no way a still has hockey to play too he's the only kid left in this group and he he abs i think people need to wrap their head around that he is very much in that three four conversation in this draft and he's going to potentially have the lasting impression on teams and if that's with a

memorial cup trophy being thrust over his head that's that's not a small thing he's he's been the central part of that wildcats team and they've got a real chance here to to pull it off and he's been the clear best player in the cute playoff too i know where it's the queue, and you've got to always put a big asterisk next to that, but it's not just like he's playing well. He's like been tremendous at that level. He has carried that team to basically just rolling through everybody on the way to a Q title. And he's doing that while having projectable traits. He's done that while playing well at different environments for team Canada over the course of the year. Like, you know, when I, there's no guarantee.

because I think there's this group of forwards at the top of the draft. You know, we've mentioned a couple of names. There's Jake O'Brien. There's Roger McQueen. There's, you know, James, James Hagan's Michael Mesa. Like the only ones I'm hearing people are guaranteeing or not getting out of the top five are Misa and Dinaoye. I think those are the two guys that the league just universally adores right now. What I do think is interesting, too, about your guys' mock drafts.

So moving a little further down the board here, no defenseman for either of you, besides Matthew, Schaefer, who's going first for both of you in the top eight. And I know that the forwards are the strength of this class. But I do think that's interesting. It'd be a little bit of a trend breaker. And particularly with the team that's sitting at eight guys. Like Seattle has never used one. They've existed for four drafts. They've never used their first round pick on a defenseman. They've only used two second round picks on defensemen. I know that they've, they've really stocked up at the NHL level on their blue line. But do they not at some point need to use a high pick on a de-chris? I mean, You would certainly hope so.

I mean, but again, I think you look at this class and you say, well, I don't want to swing on a defenseman in a class where we're not super excited. I mean, every guy in this class, I mean, it's the thing. This is every draft ever is that there are guys that are going to have these positives and negatives. And I think for the defensemen, you know, you see guys like Reddy Murko, who's a six foot six forward, but does he compete hard enough? You know, like, that's not a, that's not a question you want to have about a player at that size. You've got, you know, Kishon, Acheson, who has had this tremendous season and as a physical player, you know, does that, does what he did this year really translate to the NHL beyond kind of some of the physical play and, you know, having a good shot and other things like that. Yes, I mean, I think it does. But for if you're a team that that has a need for defense, I don't think you're looking at this group and saying, well, we're going to get another cornerstone here.

which you'd love to get in a top 10 pick, which just doesn't always happen. But, you know, I think I look at guys and if it kind of comes down to, you know, one of those defensemen versus McQueen or versus Higgins or something like that, you know, maybe there's a different kind of discussion because of whatever risk profile you put to those other players. So, you know, I think that reaching for need doesn't necessarily work when there are better options. I mean, obviously you're looking for fit, organizational fit, and things like that. But you can never have enough good players.

And if you think one of the forwards is better, you have to take the forward. 2012 draft eight of the ten top ten picks were defensemen. And I'm not saying that's going to happen this year. But I think that's the betting odds now that this is just going to be that just this is just what this group is. It's a forward heavy group. And I think there's no consensus lock topic. a defenseman in this draft. You could talk to people who have Ranan Mercka there. You could talk to people who have Kashan Aitchison in their top 10. It's becoming a much smaller pool of people,

but there's still some people who have Jackson Smith in there even after his disappointing U18s. So I think there probably will be a defenseman who goes in the top 10, and I'm guessing it will be one of Mercka or Aitchinson. I can't guarantee that. And it really wouldn't surprise me if there's only 1D in the top 10, despite how much that would trend against historical norms. And I understand it's a premium position. But the reason they would be going lower is because the other premium position, centers are all going to be going in the top 10. The team who picks Brady Martin, whether you believe he's a center or not in the NHL,

they're going to draft him as a center. You know, it's, and, you know, probably if there's a good chance McQueen gets cleared by teams and he goes really high as a center. And I think that would just be the center. area that would play out if you don't get that other high high defenseman pick. But is it fair to say that for Seattle, who has invested heavily in centers, like, is it not worth a little dip in value to finally get a D of that caliber? Or is it the gap's too big for you there?

I guess it depends how their list goes. I mean, like, my sense is and could not happen that way unless they just really adore one of those D men, just because I just, just, it's the same argument with should Hagan go first overall kind of thing. It's, yes, when there's a significant, you know, decrease in value,

you can't go off the board that much, you know, as a tiebreaker, sure, but I'm going to guess, I don't know who it is, just given how many good centers are on this draft, I'm going to guess there's going to be a center

they have three, four, or five on their list who's going to be available at eight, just based on the odds and how many good centers there are in this draft. But maybe they do love Mercca. Maybe they do love.

of Aitchinson that much. That's very possible, but I, that's just not what the player pool is this year. Merch has been in their backyard all season too. And I think people often assume that that's a benefit. And it's not always the case. The fact that he played in Seattle this year and that they would have seen him a ton can often work against the player. I think it worked against Carter Yakumchuk in terms of the Calgary Flames last year. Now, Yakumchuk never got to the Flames, but I don't believe the flames were going to pick Yakumchuk if he was there. They liked players like and Perak and others better, even though he plays for an organization that is owned by the Calgary Flames. So we've seen it over the years. The Dallas Stars have drafted a few players from

Camloops, which is obviously owned by the same ownership group, Logan Stankovin being one of them. But it's, it's tricky when you see a player all the time and when the players right there and when your GM can take a night off during the week and go and watch that kid play five, six, seven, eight, nine times. Now, Bill LaForge and Matt Odette, the coach and general manager in Seattle, they believe that Ridi Merkka, based on the conversations I've had with them, they believe he's going in the top 10 in this draft. So there's all sorts of balls in play with a player like Murka and a player like Aitchison who had excellent playoffs as well for Barry

and is a playoff style winning type of player that scouts tend to really like. But it's as Corey and Chris sort of alluded to, this is maybe the group is just a forward group. Maybe those guys belong 10, 11, 12, 13. maybe they aren't top 10 talents in this group. All right, so we just talked about where the D fit in this class, and obviously each class is its own makeup. But Corey, you had a piece that came out this morning

that I think really does speak to another element that teams are thinking about in this, as they go about this process. It's not just like, okay, best player one, two, three. Sometimes it is best fit on the future playoff team that I am trying to build. And that can be a variable in all of this. So can you tell us a little bit about, like, How did you go about differentiating your list versus your list that as it pertains to

like how they would fare in the playoffs? This was my first year tried this exercise. So I'll be curious how it ages and what the perception to it is. It's a conversation that I think often happens in the league is you all you still want to get great players and great players should play well no matter the environment they are in. You know, and I would, you would hope that players who dominate in the regular season would also still be really good in the postseason, even though it's a small sample size and KDOT things happen in a couple of games.

But it's fair to say that even compared to some of the other major pro sports in North America, that the game changes probably more in hockey than it does in other sports in terms of how the game is officiated, in terms of just how the flow of the game operates, and that certain traits get emphasized a little bit more. You know, the game is faster. is definitely more physical. Things still plenty of penalties, but things get let go.

So I think when you talk to people around the league, you know, when they think about what excels to the playoffs, typically it's guys who can play fast, guys who can handle the physicality, guys who compete really hard. It's not always about playing physical, it's just about the work ethic.

You often hear the line that, you know, most of playoff goals come within a couple of inches of the net. whether that's true or not you can look at the data, but that's the mentality. And I thought it'd be interesting to look at these players from the lens of what 10, who do I think is going to have success in the spring. And I basically saw two notable trends pop up

when I was doing this exercise that weren't really all that revelationary, is that some defensemen who I might have rated lower overall as players tend to move up, especially the bigger defenseman, which is things that you see emphasize at the trade deadline. For example, think of what a Brandon Carlo went for at the trade deadline. And, you know, a guy in Blake Fiddler, who I think is a pretty reasonable comparable to Carlo ends up being top 15 in this exercise.

And then you have smaller forwards, especially smaller forwards, whose compete may not be the main, main trait that gets you excited about them. they move down in some cases significantly, but in some cases not, like Victor Eklund, who is 5-11, basically stays exactly in the exact same spot because I think he's an elite competitor with great skating,

and you often hear from people who are advocates of him that he's a guy you win with, which I agree with, although he's still a 5-11 wing, and I think that player profile will still get picked apart a little bit, but those were the major distinctions that I saw in terms of the high-end names,

the things you saw, saw was that I took Redden and Merck and K. Sean Acheson, who were outside of my top 10 overall players, and they are now in the top 10. I think it was like 7 or 8 or 8 and 9. And then I guess the most high profile one is James Hagan's goes from 5 overall on my list to where I think I had around 10 or 11 now, just due to concerns about his at-time's perimeter play and his size,

even though his skating, you could argue he might be one of the best pure skaters in the draft. Scott, what's your reaction to kind of those moves? I mean, we do expect that this is how, you know, teams think big picture, but it's obviously not the NWL, nor is Corey saying it's the NLBL. No, yeah, it's, it's an interesting thought exercise. It's one that I think is worthwhile thinking about because the playoffs is ultimately the end goal for every NHL club. I do think you run into potentially getting carried away with an exercise like this of the, the 5-11, 6-foot guys who maybe don't have that speed piece or maybe don't have that ultimate compete piece. I do think a lot of players, even without those attributes, are still capable of

having a lot of success in the NHL playoffs. I look at Connor McMichael, for example, in Washington and some of the big goals that Connor McMichael has scored this year. He's a six-foot average pace, average compete player who just thinks the game well and can shoot the puck in the net and has some other tools that have made him successful. I think about some of the big goals, Logan Stankovin. Now, you could maybe argue that Logan Stankovin has the compete and the, that sort of same case for Victor Eklin. But I think Eklund's the one I think of with Stankovin and Jarvis, although I also think Michael competes well, too. Sorry about that. Yeah, certainly I wouldn't say it's ever been a defining quality of his game. I don't know. It's, it's interesting.

I don't think James Higgins, even in a playoff context, is the 11th best prospect in this draft in terms of how he could impact the playoffs. So that's where some of the disagreement. Would he maybe slide on my list if you were talking strictly about playoffs and the way that the game is played? Maybe they're certainly on defense. Teams are built long. Everybody has seen what the St. Louis Blues and the Vegas Golden Knights and the Tampa

Bay Lightning, how they built their blue lines. Colorado has maybe done things is maybe the one example of a team that's built their blue line a little bit differently than those clubs. So there are different ways of doing it, but there are certainly trends in the NHL in terms of what scouts are now prioritizing, especially length on the, length on the blue line, which players like Rudy Merck to have with emphasis, obviously. So it's an interesting exercise. I'm not sure I would have landed in the same places that Corey did, but I understand why

it's worthwhile to think through. Yeah. Colorado is a good call out, although I do think Josh Manson has been excellent since he's gone to Colorado. I also do agree you can think things a little bit. You don't want to emphasize physicality. to the point where you're taking Tyler Boucher in the top 10 or you're taking Dilla McElrath

over Camp Fowl or things of those natures. And there's definitely been, you know, everybody always chases that kind of player and it happens often. But I just think it's a balancing act and I wouldn't particularly just draft that way if I was doing it. But I do know that's,

it's an interesting kind of balance that teams I do, especially for rebuilding teams. We're talking about these premium picks, like where, say, James Hagan's would go, because it's great to think about theoretically what it would take to win a Stanley Cup, but then the teams that would be in the mix to take them are typically very far away from that,

even being in the crux of their conversation, that you got to at least think about just building a great team first. But then on the other hand, when you make these top five picks, these top three picks, it's great to think about, well, if we think we're not tough enough, we'll fix that in 10 years from now or five years from now. But usually when you make these picks, your community of these guys, hopefully for 10 to 15 years, you're envisioning giving them huge money, eight-year contracts at some point. So I think that at least has to be part of the

calculation. I mean, we just had the conversation about Chicago and in Hukkah Day Pick. One name we didn't bring up at all for them is James Higgins. And part of it is because they have Connor Badard, Oliver Moore, Frank Naser, they are filled with these smaller, faster forwards, which is a good thing. I don't think they regret any of those picks. But when you make those picks at one point, it maybe skews you the other way in future picks, Chris. Yeah, exactly. I mean, I think you can't have too much of one thing and you have to have balance within your lineup. And it is, it is harder to, you know, to kind of build with balance. I mean, I think when you're picking high, you always want to take the best players.

But I think Chicago would say, yeah, we've got to start thinking about what that's going to look like. How do we address that? You know, the free agent markets have not allowed teams to really significantly improve in the last several years. So hopefully with a higher salary cap, perhaps that will become a little bit better because I think that's, you know, fans want to see a little more player movement as well on things like that. But, you know, I think, you know, you look at kind of some of the guys that you can, you can have. And, you know, Hagen's in particular is a guy that I think his, I think his compete has been a little bit undersold. You know, publicly at least that.

I think that, you know, and I look at guys, like, one of the best playoff performers of the last decade has been Jake Gensel. You know, and so I think, like, there are guys like Higgins that can find a way to make a contribution. You know, Wyatt Johnson, 6-1, you know, he's, but he's not, he doesn't play heavy, you know, but he's a great competitor. What, he's a great competitor. He's a great, let me finish, he's a great competitor. And he's one of the best playoff players we have right now among the players at his age, but he's not a huge guy. You know, like, I think that there's, there's a difference between 6-1 and 5-10, no question about it. But, you know, I think that there, there are a lot of players that, you know, if you overthink it,

And I think it's a good exercise to do. It's just not something that I'm going to subscribe to. You know, I think that there's, there's, I think these teams are like, you can't win with this guy in the playoffs. I think it's bull, quite frankly, especially when it comes to a guy like Higgins, who is such a smart player. So, you know, I've heard that argument from scouts before. I'm like, okay, that's fine.

That's great. And yeah, it's nice to have, but I still think that there's, you know, if you're going to draft a player high enough. you're expecting to be a top of the lineup player at any time of the season. So I still think there's a ton of value to guys like, you know, and I think Hagen's is the guy that kind of gets pointed to in this draft. But I also think that there's been a lot. Like, I don't think he's perimeter at all.

I don't like that. And I don't think there have been games where, you know, I felt like he didn't score because he was too outside. What would be the handicap for you two on where he ultimately lands? Like, I'm just thinking through because we've just talked through Chicago. And I mean, I think his skating fits in their profile, but maybe he's too small for them. And I mean, I would be stunned of Utah, talk them just based on what they are. I don't think he's a fit for San Jose, Chicago, Utah at two, three, four.

I think the conversation about Higgins probably starts at five with Nashville and potentially the desire to add that premium skill piece that they've longed for. That doesn't mean that Nashville will take him. Nashville has also taken a bunch of 510, 511, 6-foot players, especially at forward in the last few drafts. You go a sur in a year ago, Teddy Stiga, you go down the list. But I think they still are missing that sort of premium skill, craft, creativity, power play, point producing type. And I think Kagan's has the chance to be that.

But I don't think if it's not the Islanders at one, I don't think he's a fit for San Jose necessarily, Chicago necessarily, or Utah in terms of what they already have. Well, that's where I was going to get this. Isn't it at least somewhat fascinating and maybe somewhat even a disconnect that we're talking about a guy who we think there's no way he goes to. There's no way he goes three. No way he goes four. He doesn't say no way.

We think it's unlikely. We think conversation probably starts at five unless he goes one. Like that seems a little straight. Yeah. Yeah, but that's the thing like Cam Robinson and I did a, a mock draft on ours and he he slipped like he i think it ended up being eight to seattle and it was just like if you're seattle in that position you're just like well we can't let him go much further than that and he's better than the two defensemen we're talking about so you know like i think that that's

kind of the the situation yeah there's there is a i think there is a chance that he could slip but but really like and that's the thing is is the islanders are the real suddenly the real wild card of the whole thing we they still don't have a general manager we still don't know what that what that's strategy is going to be. But yeah, but I mean like that's, but the thing is, is within this mold, like I think it all comes down to team fit. And if you do have like Chicago does, the Connor Bedards and Frank Nazars and Oliver Moore's, you know, then maybe that's not the best play.

But gosh, it's hard to believe, though, thinking about kind of where they've been. If they had the opportunity to draft one of the players that I do think is one of the five best players in this draft and then don't because he's 511. or 510. You know, so it's very interesting. But I agree. Like, I just think that there's too much, you can't have too much of one thing.

And, you know, even Utah who has just Logan Cooley and, and Clayton Keller, they're like, we got to get bigger. You know, we can't have more than two of those guys. Like, you know, like, who are our best players. But, yeah, it's kind of interesting. Genther's up there too. But I guess I brought that up just because. Of the conversation that's going on in the Islanders fan base right now,

where he seems to be an extremely, you know, common topic is should they take Hagan's. And I just think it's interesting given that I think we somewhat agree it's unlikely that he's going to go two, three, or four. I can't recall a situation where people are like, okay, well, maybe he should just go one then. Like that's, like, he should be seriously in that conversation, even though we think. think that three teams picking immediately after you are probably not going to have this player in their conversation. It begs the question, are you picking about one because he belongs in the conversation as a player or are you trying to appease some secondary variables? Well, I think it all comes down to fit. And I think every calculation that you do has to be,

like, there has to be that, that kind of discussion about, hey, like, we're not a destination. We can't get free agents. We can't. can't get, you know, we can't keep necessarily, you know, we didn't keep our cornerstone player. You know, those are the kind, they, they have a different dynamic and a different psyche, I think, is an organization in terms of why it would potentially make sense. Yeah, exactly. And, and the thing is, is if the separation for me was so far between him and Schaefer, given the risk profile that still exists with Schaefer, as much as we believe that he has the potential to be a number one defenseman, the gap is, is so narrow to me that it doesn't,

it's not an insane conversation to have. I don't think it's insane, but I do think there's a gap. It's not, it's not a tie. No, no, I would, I agree with that. I agree with that. But, but again, it comes back to where are you as an organization? What is, what is the best for your long term? And is it taking the swing?

or and none of these guys are sure things. Like I just don't, you know, I don't see a single guy that I'm like, this guy is absolutely going to be a star in the NHL. You know, Schaefer is probably the closest to it. But yeah, it's a very, it's a very interesting dynamic. But I still think that, you know, that opens the options for, for the Islanders to potentially get Hagen's plus something else, too. You know, if somebody really desperately wants MISA or somebody desperately wants

Schaefer, you know that if, if Schaefer, you know that if, if Schaefer lands at the sharks, you're basically assuming that that's where he'll, like, they'll get them. So if you want to jump the line, then all of a sudden, I think the islanders have a, have a real case for trading back and potentially getting something out of it. This conversation we're having about Hagen's two is not a four in one. The Montreal Canadians considered selecting Shane Wright. The New Jersey Devils and the then Arizona coyotes were not considering selecting Shane Wright at two, three.

They were locked in on Simon Nemich and Logan Cool. as their guys in that draft. And I think these players at the top of this group are better than the four or five kids that we were talking about at the top of that group. But in terms of a draft where there are several players in the conversation and someone who's one or two on someone's list, maybe four or five on another, that's recent memory for us here. So this is not a novel draft in that way.

I'm bringing that up a little bit because I think in that draft, as we got closer to that draft, I think there was, and maybe this happens in the coming weeks, although I don't think it's going to. When we got closer to that draft, there were definitely different pools of thought on his right number one, Slavkovsky one, maybe Kooley, should be the number one pick. I'm not really getting that sense with this draft. I don't talk to many scouts. I don't talk to many teams.

I don't really talk to, I would have some, a couple of outliers, maybe for Mesa, really, but almost everybody I've talked to think Schaefer is the best player. and some by a considerable margin. So that would be, I think Scott's point is valid in that regard, but I don't think the facts perfectly align with this situation. Just to kind of put a final point on this topic, I went through yesterday and was looking at the sub-six-foot forwards on the eight playoff teams that are remaining,

although I guess one is now eliminated in Vegas, but we're going to go eight that made the second round. Carolina did have three, Seth Jarvis, Logan, Stankevin, and Jackson Blake, Dallas head four, Mikhail Granland, Matthew Sheenov, Colin Blackwell, But Edmonton, zero. Florida, two, Brad Marchand and Evan Rodriguez. Toronto, one, Max Domi, if you buy Mitch Marner at six foot, maybe you say two, if you don't. Vegas, one, Victor Olifson, Washington, two, Andrew Mangiopani and Anthony Bavillier, and the Jets, just Cole Perfetti.

Most of those are not core players either. Like, there's only three to be generous of those guys that you're taking, like, in a top five. And I think that's the, that's the Victor Eklund argument, right? because like he when you look at the guys who have who have success for those teams you can look at at acclain and be like i can see him do that i've seen him do that in international events i've seen him do that in the playoffs for your garden like even though he's small like that guy's a gamer he attacks people like it's you know there he has a very endearing style of play uh to have success when the when the games get hard all right let's take a quick break right there we'll be right

back we're going to talk about roger mcqueen all right we're back before we're get back into it, just want to let you guys know, the WNBA season tips off on Friday, May 16th, and that The Athletic is your ultimate destination for all things WNBA. We got three full-time writers that will have you covered in print and on no off season. Podcast brings you the latest news, analysis, player interviews, smart in-depth analysis. It's going to help you truly understand the game beyond the surface. Now the Athletics' WNBA coverage features curated video highlights too, ensuring you never miss the key action. So make sure you're up on that.

Okay, so now let's talk about Roger McQueen. Corey, you had a piece this week on him, calling him one of the most fascinating prospects in this class. I don't think anybody here is going to dispute that. And it all comes down to, in a way, the medical, right? I mean, what little we've seen of Roger McQueen on the ice this year has been spectacular. You call them a potential top three talent in this class based on talent. But talent is only a sliver of this picture when you consider the back injuries.

he's had. Yes, he missed most of the season. He got off to a tremendous start there at October and basically he didn't see him again until the very last few games of Brandon season there. He had a back injury. The exact specifics of that back injury has been disputed. We get into details and the piece on what people might think might be going on there and what Roger has said in interviews. But at the end of the day, you know, this is a 6-5 right shot center. He skates, quite well for a guy his size. He has legit high-end puck skills.

He plays reasonably hard. There's a lot there to be excited about. And he looks like the profile, potential first-line sentiment in the NHL. But he didn't play this year. And this is a story that we've been quite familiar

with in what happened with Caden Lindstrom last year, who went forth overall to Columbus and missed half of his drafts. He's and basically hasn't played until the week we're recording this essentially, where also he missed one game now in the series, which might be due to rest, might be due to injury. It's hard to say.

But it reminds you of that situation. And I think most hockey people you talk to, though, would say McQueen's a better hockey player than Lindstrom is. Lindstrom is faster. I think McQueen is fast, but Lindstrom's speed is electric, especially for a guy's size. Lindstrom just has more of an edge in his game. He's really physical.

He gets to the dirty areas. I think he's just going to be a physical force, presuming he's healthy. But Roger has more pure skill. He definitely has better hockey sense, more of a natural overall offensive player that he's bigger than Lindstrom is too. So I think in the same draft,

if healthy, he should go ahead of Lindstrom. But I think teams, right or wrong are going to be influenced by what just happened with Lindstrom. And I think quite frankly, even though Columbus took him for, and I think you had heard rumors that this was a top guy who was going to be a top five pick, there were a lot of teams, teams with high picks last year who really were not interested in going down that path with Lindstrom. So I think even though he went top five, even though I'm saying that McQueen is a better

player, I don't think there's any guarantees he's going top five. And I don't even think there's a guarantee. I think he's probably still goes top 10, just based on what I'm hearing and the teams that I know were sending in armies of people in to go watch him when the few games when he was healthy. But I can't guarantee anything because I think there is still substantial risk in being comfortable with the player and being comfortable with the medicals. I would say, despite the fact that McQueen is an inch taller, I wouldn't call him bigger than Caden Winstrom. I think Lindstrom's bigger in all of the ways that actually matter in terms of just the strength piece of the puzzle. McQueen, because of the injury and because he didn't get to train like he wanted to last summer, I think he's behind in terms of where teams would want him to be from a physical standpoint.

He's still got to get stronger and fill out that frame of his. So there's work other than the health that McQueen needs to do to reach his potential maybe in a way that Lindstrom doesn't have that work still in front of him. but from a smart standpoint, I don't even think it's close between the way that McQueen thinks the game and the way that Winstrom plays. So, yeah, very different players in my mind despite the similar injuries.

I actually think there's a closer comp between a player like McQueen and a player like Gabe Volardi in terms of what Gabe Volardi looked like in his draft year in Kingston. And obviously Gabe has also dealt with the back injury and that has lingered. Now, they may be different back injuries

as Corey mentioned, McQueen has given two different answers as to what his injury is in two different interviews over the last year and a half. He called it a herniated disc sort of wintertime two winters ago and then said, whoa, whoa, why is everybody talking about herniated disc? It's not a herniated disc in a recent interview. So there has been mixed messaging from even McQueen himself about what he's been dealing with over the course of the last year. And it's flared up for him a number of times as it has with Caden.

but I think you're looking at very different players with very different attributes despite the size piece of the puzzle being common and the injury piece of the puzzle being common. He's probably a way better skater than Valardi is though, right? I don't think McQueen's an excellent, like I've spoken with his strength and condition guy and his skating guy. I don't think he's an excellent skater.

It's come a long way and I think he moves well for his size but I don't think he's a way better skater than Valardi was a brutal skater at that age. That's more my point. Like he could like kick, like he had, he had sand in his skates. Like it was. I don't know. That was, that's how I remember him at the same point. Yeah.

The one thing I'll say, Max, is that it's, it's great to be big unless you have a back injury. Yes. That is the thing. Like, like, honestly, like, that's the biggest thing is that when you are a big. player when you are especially a player that's still you know kind of growing into your body muscular you know kind of uh development all of these different things it's just you know i'm not a doctor i don't know how that's going to work work out but i do know that it makes people really nervous when it's a back injury uh for a player that has size because it is something that can potentially

hinder those players a little bit more um you know harder to rehab harder to recover from uh you know traditionally there, there have obviously been a number of players that have, have had their careers cut short by back injuries of all sizes. But really, I think there's a, there's a genuine concern. You know, are you ever going to be able to play the way that you need to play at your size if you're dealing with these kinds of injuries? I mean, I think back even to, you know, this is a different situation, but Tyler Boucher, you know, was injured for most of his draft season and has really

continually been injured. And part of that is because the stock. that he plays was not going to, was not conducive to somebody with his kind of, you know, injury history, apparently. And so those are all risks that I think people kind of are going to take into account. The thing is, is that, you know, as this draft class thins out, as we get further down into the top 10, the reward potential is so high for a player if McQueen hits. And so that's the thing is that you're, that's the new kind of dynamic. But I do think the recent history of Lindstrom is, is sticking in the minds of people.

I think there's still doubts about how much, how back Ketam really is and how much he'll be able to play. You know, we'll see kind of going forward next year and hopefully he's got, you know, the good support. And I want the player. I hope he comes back because I think he's a really talented player and everything works out. But yeah, but I mean, I think it's tough for Roger McQueen because it's bad. timing obviously but at the same time it's for teams this is an opportunity to do that risk assessment and there's not a single medical report that will be more poured over than his after the combine so um it'll it'll be really interesting to watch the risk reward there is definitely in

terms of the next there there's going to be a point in the draft there where it becomes probably too tempting you know we if you know it's jake o'brien for example is a fabulous hockey player and And I think McQueen's a better hockey player, but I absolutely can see that. I mean, that's close enough where don't fall in taking O'Brien. Even like Brady Martin, like, I think there's a gap there for me personally, but I'm not offended if someone takes Brady Martin over McQueen. Then you get to a certain point where you're like, you know, Brady Coots or, you know, Justin Carboneau or, you know, Reschney. It's like, okay, guys, this is not, we're not talking the same universe of talent anymore. And at that point, I think it gets way too tempting for NHL clubs.

It's going to be very interesting to watch it all play out on draft day. That's going to do it for us. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Afedic Hockey Show Prospect series. You can catch more of Chris over at Flow Hockey and on his podcast called up. I'll be back with Laz for your next episode of the FEDic Hockey show on Monday. We'll talk to you then.