The Athletic Hockey Show - Which NHL rebuild is closest to a Stanley Cup?

Episode Date: September 4, 2025

On today’s show, Max, Corey, and Scott answer a simple question: which rebuilding NHL team, one of the 16 that missed the playoffs last season, has the best chance of winning a Stanley Cup within the next 10 years? Plus, the guys close things out with some listener questions in the mailbag.We want to hear from you! Please fill out our listener survey: https://forms.gle/CDbF51vAPngm2ZYS6Got a question? Ask it here: t.co/fYieuQEg14Hosts: Max Bultman and Corey PronmanWith: Scott WheelerExecutive 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 Corey Promin and Scott Wheeler for another episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series. Today, we are talking about Corey's rebuild rankings. These are the rankings of teams that missed the playoffs last season and their prospects of completing a successful rebuild. We got some mailbag questions stemming from the U-23 and the pipeline rankings and a whole lot more to get to. Before we do, I wanted to tell you a little bit about sports connections. And to celebrate the start of football season at the Athletic, we have launched 32 team-specific connection sports edition puzzles. These are going to pair your love of football with our expertise

and hopefully give you a good little challenge to puzzle through. I love this game. The athletic writers who know the teams inside and out help make each puzzle so you can expect insider details, team history, all of that. It's the first time we've had puzzles for all 32 NFL teams. you're going to enjoy it. I really like the Lions one that Colton Pouncey helped with, and I'm pumped for it. So Connection Sports Edition, go on the Athletic to play and solve your team's puzzle today at

the athletic.com slash football connections. All right, let's get to the show, guys. The rebuild rankings, Corey, and I will note off the top here, before we start hearing from our friends to the north, Montreal, you made the playoffs last season. You are not eligible, but Corey, you did put a caveat in, where would the HABs have ranked had they been eligible? They are a deep young team. They would have been fourth, so San Jose was one, Utah was two, Anaheim was three,

and they would have been sandwiched in between Anaheim and Chicago. And we will get, I think, pretty into this list. And the criteria for this for a successful rebuild is, who do I think has the best chance to win a Stanley Cup in the next 10 years, not just be a playoff team or be a respectable, consistent franchise? It's who do I think has the roster composition, in the prospect pool, the runway here to build up to win a championship. That being said, I'm going to go on a small tangent here, just before we get started.

Kail McCar, Quinn Hughes, Charlie McAvoy, Mero Heskin, Victor Hedman, Jacob Slave, and Josh Morrissey, Zach Lewinsky, Shayne, Theodore Rasmus Dahlia, Thomas Harley, Mikhail Surgich, Mort Sider, Jake, Sanderson, Devontage, Roman Yosey, all guys I would take before Adam Fox. Anyways, back to the rebuild ranking. A couple of those are completely out of fun. pocket in my opinion, including McKellie's digital circuit shows. But yeah, I think Montreal would be the top

ranked Eastern team with Columbus being the second ranked Eastern team. We are going to have to do at this point, like we've teased it enough. We're going to have to do a legit episode on this Fox stuff, on this Hudson stuff. At some point, maybe that's a YouTube short when we get into a little bit less

content fertile time of the season that we can dig back into. Today, the schedule is packed. So let's get to the rebuild rankings here. Number one is San Jose Sharks. I don't think there's any surprise there. We've talked about them at length in the pipeline rankings. Obviously, Macklin-Cellebrini, Michael Misa, Will Smith, Sam Dickinson. There's a really impressive collection of young talent. And I think that's kind of true of a lot of these top teams. Utah, we've talked about how rare it is for a team to be ranked this high in this type of

ranking, while also so close to the playoffs at the NHL level. Similar deal with Anaheim. So I actually want to start at the back of the list, Corey, if that's all right. These are the teams that We're very close to the playoffs last year, but don't really feel like they're very close to Stanley Cup contention. And I guess let's start there with number 16, the Boston Bruins. Right. This is a team that actually took pretty significant progression when we did the team system rankings, being as high as I could remember in recent years, being basically a middle of the pack team after getting, you know, a prolific offensive talent in James Hagen's at the top of the most recent draft.

And they're in a precarious position because I think you look at this team and at top of Hagen's, you have Charlie McAvoy, star defenseman. You have David Pasternak, one of the best offensive players in the league. You think, okay, well, those are some really nice building blocks. And they have some other good players on the team as well.

Again, the question isn't, are they a good team or can they make the playoffs? The question is, how do you go from this point and get all the way through four rounds of the playoffs and win a Stanley Cup? And it's, you know, when they had, you know, a really, you know, great blue line and they had Trees Bergeron and Krati and you, you know, it's hard to win a Stanley Cup with only a couple of really, really good players. You need an army and they don't have that army. They don't have that army in the prospect pool outside of Hagen's and maybe to an extent a guy like a Fraser Minton who I think could be a, you know, a useful third line player.

You know, it's hard to see where's the, where's the future coming on their defense? It's just a bunch of question marks unless you think basin low rise going to figure out how to defend anytime soon and not just be less like a skill guy. I'm not really sure where they're getting value on that front. I'm not sure where they're getting, you know, significant value elsewhere on the forward front offensively other than Hagen's. And so I have like serious questions about where this organization is going over the next five, six years other than basically just trying to be a bubble playoff team.

essentially and hope you go your goal that goes on a crazy run in the spring. Scott, when I look at the Bruins, I mean, obviously if you could fast forward on James Hagen's and get him at, you know, 21 into this lineup with Prime Pasternak and Prime McAvoy, I think you're a little more excited, but there's just this issue that they kind of have where can you keep the one window, the sliding doors open on this era with these current prime stars open long enough for guys like Hagan's? I assume they're going to get another nice draft pick this year for those guys to arrive and not just get there but be impact guys. I think at the age that those players are at, it's tough.

I know it feels still like Charlie McAvoy is a Norris caliber defenseman and like David Pasturnak is a potential Art Ross contender in terms of one of the five to 10 leading scores in the league every year. But that won't last forever. David Pastrernac turns 30 this season and Charlie McAvoy is 28. So if you're waiting until James Higgins is 21 and whatever pick you get next year, is 21. Suddenly those guys are into their early 30s. I think it's unreasonable to expect those players to maintain the level that they've maintained. Frankly, last year, I think we saw a dip in,

in all three of those players, and maybe not Pashternac, but there needs to be, they need to be, like, Swamen has to be in the Vesna conversation, and McAvoy has to be in the Norse conversation, and Pashtonac has to be among the league's leading scorers for them to even be a playoff team at this point, because of how thin the rest of the shell of that team now is, you look at that roster. Like I was scrolling through before we hopped on here, I was scrolling through their cap chart, and it is grim after those three.

And it just nowhere near where it was even, what, 16, 18 months ago for them, right? So they've already begun to strip it down, and they may face really hard decisions. Those guys are always the hardest guys to move on from, because they've been so important to your organization. they've meant so much to your organization, to your fan base. And it's hard to enter into a proper rebuild when you have these premium guys that you feel you can turn it around quickly with. And there are teams that have done it.

The Rangers had that quick turnaround where they sort of reset for a couple of years and they were right back contending in an Eastern Conference Championship kind of thing. But that's, that's rare. And there's no guarantee that even if they go into a hard rebuild around James Higgins and whatever picks they can manage to stack up around him, there's no guarantee that they come out of that in a better position than what McAvoy and Pastonac represent for them currently. So I don't know whether we like to sort of talk about they should do this and they should do this. I don't really know what the best path forward for the Bruins is. And that's a dangerous spot to be in. I would be curious for the analogy from your perspective, Max, and I think it's a little different because of the age of McAvoy and Pashterac is not quite the same thing.

But like, you remember when Lidstrom retired from the Red Wings? and you thought, okay, that's the first guy to go. And they were still decent. Like, they were still competing for a playoff spot. But you kind of saw, okay, the ends coming here. You know, they get Michael Rasmussen with one of their top 10 picks. And you wonder, what's the direction? Like, how long is it going to take?

Do you see any analogies between that and Boston situation right now? Or do you think because the age of McAvoy and Patchenac, they could maybe just, if they ever decided it's getting real bad, they could flip them. And quite frankly, they could even make the playoffs this year. I don't think that's an unrealistic thing either. I don't think it's dread in Boston right now, at least in the short term, long term, I think there's dread. Well, it's just a question of can they go far in the playoffs? And I don't think anyone would feel confident in their ability to win series like that.

I mean, to your point, when Litschum retired, they still had Pavel Datsuke and Hendricks Zetterberg. That's two top 20 centers in the NHL. And I think that's being fairly conservative for where those guys were even in their 30s. Like, those are really good players. but much in the same way as with Pastor Nack and McAvoy, they could only take the Red Wings so far. The Red Wings didn't go on any more deep runs after that. And it's a tough spot to be.

I've always thought of Pittsburgh, who's also coming up on this, you know, toward the back of this list is more analogous to the end times in Detroit. But you make a good point that that intervening time where you still have a couple of stars is really tough to navigate. I think another team, too, Corey, that you talked about the direction. That applies to the New York Rangers in a huge way. And maybe the direction this year is more obvious than it is for the Bruins.

I think the Rangers are all laid on this year. You trade for a J.T. Miller. I'm much more confident in the idea that they could be a playoff team. But it's a complicated one to sort through here. Yeah, I mean, they don't even have really the top prospect, like a James Hagan's type in their system. They have some good prospects guys who you think of the solid middle six, maybe even top six wingers going forward. But this has always been a team that's kind of been propped up by goaltending. Like they were, they've really been relying on Igor Shisterkin being a top 15, top 20 player in the league on a consistent basis.

And that's always, you know, not too dissimilar from the Lungfus years in that way to try and win. And it's a dangerous way to build. And, you know, they have now their core guys that they were relying on and make those runs, they're starting to get older. And at least with boss, you know, like, okay, they can sub out. They can bring in Higgins. He'll be a first line center for them maybe if he hits everything. go as well. You're looking at the Rangers and be like,

okay, well, where's the core players coming from? Like, you're basically praying the left for an year

becomes all of a sudden impactful, right? Like, you know, I'm not really sure where, where this team gets to another level here other than them basically

hoping that all these guys that are getting older, all of a sudden kind of just turn it around, essentially. Am I missing something obvious here? I think, I agree with you.

I think they're better team and they should, They could easily make a playoffs this year, but it's hard to imagine this team winning a Stanley Cup with this current group of players. It's a big bet on Shisterkin. And I do think what they're kind of going for, we saw some Boston teams, not this past year, but the years before that win with a group that I think is kind of somewhat reminiscent of this, where it's a lot of kind of gritty older veteran guys that maybe you're starting to put in the past their prime kind of bucket in your head. head. But day one with Craichie Berger on those guys. Like I think J.T. Miller, Vincent Trocheck, even Mika Zabanajad, still have a lot of good hockey to give, even if they're not in their prime. I think that's what it is. But to me, it's just that this one is

much, if Boston is kind of stuck between two periods of time, New York's all in on the next year or two, in my view. Yeah, it's now or never for for the Rangers. They've got that all of those, if Pasturenex 30 in Boston, right, all of these guys are 33, 34. The Rangers timeline is almost two or three years past where the Bruins timeline currently is. Maybe the Bruins we're talking about as a Rangers team that pushes to add in the next couple of years and to find those trochecks and those sort of complementary pieces that can play with a Panarin or a Pastranach. But man, the Rangers, maybe more than almost any team in the league, feel like it's next

year, maybe the year after. And then suddenly those guys go from 34 to 36 and it's a completely different ceiling as a team. All right, let's keep going up this list then. And we talked about the Penguins for a second. Obviously, we've talked about them a lot right around the draft. I think they're at the beginning of a long haul stage. But another one of these teams, Corey, that's kind of difficult to figure out which way

this is going to go. Are the Canucks closer to the Bruins or the Rangers for you in terms of what they are? Well, there are a complicated scenario. You know, what's going on with Thatcher Demko? is he healthy? Is he going to be good? What does the real Elias Pedersen look like long-term? Those are massive questions without clear answers.

Obviously, you have the Quinn Hughes contract situation looming a little bit right now. I think there's kind of like the Bruins and like the Rangers. I think they're a decent team. I think they could make the playoffs this year. Like there's good players on this team. there's a couple of good young players like Tom Valander could potentially come up and help them this year Ratu could come up and help them this year

they've got some decent prospects they don't have really high-end prospects coming by any means but it's you know I could see them build to the point where they went around maybe unless Patterson just becomes like that MVP caliber player again though and Demko becomes a legitimate starting goalie at the top tier the league. It's hard to see the path, though, forward. And even with Pedersen, I think there's some big questions there on, is he a guy who gets it done even strength? Or is he just going to

be a kind of guy who gets a ton of power play points even in his best years? All right, let's take a quick break right there. We're going to come back and talk about the top 10 on this list. All right, we're back. And before we get to the top 10 listeners, we want to hear from you, check out the link in the description and give us your feedback on the show, what content you've enjoyed the most on the athletic hockey show, what you might want us to do differently. as we get ready for another season. We appreciate your continued support as always. Now let's get back to the show.

Corey, where we left off, I said we were going to get to the top 10. First, I do have a team that I kind of thought would still be in the top 10. And I realize that the Buffalo Sabres have not delivered on any of the promise, any of the hype that we've talked about for years now. But I still look at the system and I see a team that on talent feels like they have a good chance to get there someday. And maybe the years going by hurts that. I see him behind the Calgary Flames in the New York Islanders. I still think I like the Sabre System more than that.

So talk me through Buffalo at 11. Yeah, I think, again, the question isn't here whether they're good, could be a good team or not. I think Buffalo can be a good team. I think they can be a consistent playoff team with the talent they have. The question is, can they get to the finish line? And I think with me, that comes down to where are the elite players? And doesn't need to be truly like top five, ten players in the league,

but where are the difference makers here? And I think we kind of feel that Rasmus Dahlene is in that conversation. And then after that, it's some questions, right? Like, we thought Tatech Thompson was there and now it's a maybe. We thought Owen Power could be that. Now it's a maybe. They had that really exciting line of Dylan Cousins, J.J. Peturca and Jack Quinn at one point. And now two of those three guys are gone.

And Jack Quinn's holding on for his life, it seems like, you know, on that. lineup and obviously they bring in Josh Norris who's a good player, often injured, mind you, but a good hockey player when he's on the ice. And I guess I look at this team and I just have questions on a lot of the guys who are a little bit older now when we, you know, from when we talked about them years ago, as promising young players and some of them have developed well, some of them not as well. And I guess that's my one like minor question. But I could like at that point in the list, you could like move those guys around.

I think, like, it wasn't much separation for me from, like, 7 to 12, really? So, like, I could see that argument. It's been really hard to bet on Buffalo in recent years. I know, like, Scott and I have some major deviations as well on Devin Levi and whether they actually have an answer in net at all long term. And I think that'd be my explanation. They're, like, for the Islanders, like, yeah, they, it's a little bit more bare bones there. but you know you have some i think but you know guys like parzal and horvette are really good they have some you know it's a decent blue line with some with some good players i and obviously shafer i think has

star potential so that's the one guy you're looking at like okay he can be he can elevate and be a real high end piece uh i really like calum ritchie i really like danny nelson i really like ecklin and i think there's some there's some guys and other than shafer and i guess like maybe a barzal in his better years. I don't know if they have like legit star power either, but I think there's just slightly more reasons I'm excited about their trajectory, but, but I could, you pivot that, you could argue that Islanders, it's not deep enough. They don't have enough good young players. Yeah, it's a lot of projection. Buffalo, there's guys on the team that are playing well, that are young. So, you know, I could see it go either way there.

I do wonder with the Sabres, specifically about the forwards. And if Tage Thompson isn't that horse, that number one forward. I'm not sure, like Corey talked about how there's maybes with Owen Power and maybes with Devon Levi and all of those things are true. There's also maybes with as good as Yuri Kulich

looked for stretches last year. As promising as Consta Hellenius has been at times, even Noah Usland, who is beloved by coaches and scouts and very widely respected in the league as a good young player and was excellent in the HAL last year, there were a question

about all of those players. Ostland, Heleneas, like none of, and, and even if they, even if they, in a best case scenario, I don't think anybody realistically expects that Heleneas or Koolik or Oceland are, our true top of the lineup players on a contending team item. So I think you may end up in a similar situation with each of those to what the, the Red Wings, for example, are sort of navigating very different player types, but what they're, they could be navigating with, with Marco Casper and Nate Danielson and Michael Bram. and Zeghny guard and they're just they're all very good players they may have a very deep

forward group at some point here of 12 forwards who are all really good players but you need that that defining guy um we haven't mentioned ridy murk i think ridy murk has got a chance to be a really good addition to the blue line as well um but it's it's it's up front more than on the blue line or or even in net i i do still have some faith in devon levi um like i still think he can be a a good NHL goalie for them. But up front, I just don't know whether 12, 40, 50 point guys is how you win in the playoffs. I'd feel a lot better about them if they hadn't made the Dylan Cousins, Josh Norris trade. I just didn't like that for them.

But some of the other trades they've made, and even that you've mentioned Merca, I'll tag him onto the end of this. Like some of the moves they've made in the last 13 months, I think did really address what the previous criticism of their system was, which was that it was a bunch of same of these small skill guys. You bring in Ryan McLeod. I don't think your one could have gone better for Ryan McLeod and Buffalo. I think it was excellent and I don't think it was a fluke. You bring in Michael Kesselring. I don't know that I'm, I don't know what I'm saying the value for J.J. Peturka is one for one, but it at least did directly address that criticism. And I think you feel way better about

the Sabres blue line of the future today than you did even three months ago. Is that fair? I think that's fair. And I don't think frankly, I like J.J. Paturka as a player, I don't think he's a huge, huge loss in the grand scheme of where they're going. going. I just think there's only one or two things that needs to go right at this point for Buffalo to get back on track. And I wonder if we're dropping them a little early. But that's what the debates for. Let's move up the list a little bit, Corey. And we talked about at the beginning. We've talked a lot about these teams up high, San Jose, Utah, Anaheim, Chicago, and obviously if Montreal were eligible, we would be there. This is the most aligned. I think I've seen you and Scott.

I'm on the top of one of these lists. I think you guys have a lot of agreement here. But I I would advocate for Anaheim to actually be up just a little bit. They're at number three. I think I'd have them as high as number two. I just think the forward core there has every bit as much depth, every bit as much star power as an Anaheim. But I think in Anaheim you actually have even a little more. You have the top four, but plus a couple. Yeah, I mean, the talented Anaheim is just tremendous.

We look at that prospect pool, the young players, Leo Carlson, Mason McTavish, Rosh. Roger McQueen, Cutter Goce, Beckett, Seneca. If those guys hit, that's a bunch of 6-3, 6-4 guys who can skate, who have high-end skill. That could be a very rare group of players that can grow together to go with those young defensemen they have as well. I have them a three just because when I look at Utah at two, I think that's already a relatively young team that's a lot closer to making the playoffs already than Anaheim is. Again, the question isn't, are you making the playoffs? The question is, are you going to win it all?

But I think you look at Utah, young players like Logan Cooley, Dylan Ghent, they're all their team to go with some of their core players. And neither of the Locomot kids, Dmitu Semic to Saddam-Boot, have played an NHL game yet. Tisha Gindler, the sixth overall pick from a year ago, hasn't played an NHL game yet. Maverick Lamarroo looked pretty good when he played, but he was hurt for a decent portion of the year. They haven't brought in their fourth overall pick yet,

Caleb D'Noye from this just past number. a couple other good profits they have as well. Like Michael Robo, Annette, who will probably be there in three to four years. And I look, and those are guys who are not already part of the composition of a team that nearly made the playoffs this past season. And I think, like, this is a team that I think can move towards contention.

And I think the only one thing you can say about them is do they have a true superstar in this group? It's like, maybe Logan Cooley, maybe Dylan Genther, Clayton Keller, but I don't think any of them really elevate to that level. but I think this could be like one of those teams where they're just rolling out four lines and three D pairs of just really good players. And I think it could happen relatively soon.

Not to backtrack here, but I find Anaheim absolutely fascinating because they remind me of almost where the Los Angeles Kings were a few years ago, where they'd amassed so many young players. And then it didn't really ever come together. You just, it's often easy for us to just assume that a team with the forwards that Corey mentioned. And that's without even getting into Steyan Solberg and Olinzellweger and Pavlman-Tiukov. Well, we sell hope. That's what we, that's what we do here. Yeah, but I just wonder how it's all going to work and how those guys are all going to fit together while they are desperate to also add veterans and make a push back into the playoffs and take a step as a team.

so they're not just sitting and drafting fifth or sixth or ninth overall every year. So I do. We've already seen Trevor Zegris and Jamie Driesdale go out the door there too. I feel like about what we do. We criticize teams less they win. Like with the Detroit, we say they're not drafting high enough. And then with the Anaheims were saying they never draft anything below.

So it's a- No, I think Anaheim belongs high. I think Leo Carlson, and for all the reasons that you guys highlighted, they belong high. This is more just a talking point of, this next phase for them where they have to put all of these guys into an NHL lineup together and try to get better with young players is one of the very hardest things to actually

pull off. And you look back at L.A., who's left, right? Like it's Quentin Bifield and Brock Faber's gone. And like, yeah, everybody's pretty much, everybody's pretty well on the other way. And they turn that into Kevin Fiala. And Turcotte's still there. The issue is just that he didn't become what they hope, but he's actually playing for them right now.

Yeah. Yeah. So I don't know. We'll see. I think there's a ton there in Anaheim. I'm mostly just interesting. LA was a little different. They had a lot of like quantity,

but it wasn't other than like Turcote byfield Clark. They never really picked high again after that. They also had way more. I think LA was closer to how we've talked about like Boston, Vancouver, because they still had Copa tar, Dowdy. They had kind of a prime age guy in Kempe coming into it. But what I think is,

interesting that you do bring up about LA, both of you guys. Anaheim needs to avoid a couple of the things that went wrong for L.A. They can't have a Turcotte situation. I think the obvious one to watch there is like Roger McQueen because there's some health rhyme. Turcotte had some health stuff. McQueen has had some health stuff. We don't, and even you could say that for Vilarty, too. It's actually probably even more analogous, Valardi and McQueen. You got to have that go right. You got to have the Brock Faber thing. There's some signability stuff there that I think, you know, colors that, but you have this system. You can't trade away the guy who's going to become one of the best players from it. And there's no way they thought he was going to be that good. Like,

I'm sure they thought he was a really good player. There's no way they thought when they trade him for Kevin Fiala. Oh, he's going to play 27 minutes a night and score 40 points as a rookie in the NHL or something like that. That was just the worst case scenario, unfortunately, for them, even though he did look like an excellent prospect at the time. But could you see something similar happening with Trevor's egress going to Philly? Like, could Trevor's he'd be that guy that you traded away and you were kind of ready to be done with it and he pops in a huge way and really regret it? Yep, absolutely.

And I think there's some people in the league who wonder just how that's going to go in Philly as well with just giving him the first power play time and getting into a different environment and it could go terribly too. I mean, he's got a lot of issues in this game, but he's got 80, 90 point potential if he shows up on a 70% of the games. I'd guess that one of those, one of those G ends up going the other way too and that you could be talking about them in a favor sort of context. Like there's just no way that all of Tristan Luno,

Jackson Lacombe, Olin Zellweger, Pavel Mintiukov, Steyen, Solberg, like that's five young D. You're not going to ice an NHL roster with five young D. And we've seen them sort of fiddle with how they're going to use Zellager and Mintiukov. They haven't even introduced Solberg yet. Luno looked like one of the very best players in the HL virtually all of last season and looks ready to take a step and join.

them. They've kind of married themselves to Jackson Lecombe as their number one guy because he has taken the steps that some of those other guys haven't, but is there a time where you have to make a decision on whether one of those guys should play over Jackson Lecombe on PP1 or that kind of thing? Like it's just they've got a lot of very complicated decisions that they're going to have to make here, including this training camp with what to do with Beckett Seneke and whether to insert Beckett Seneca into the NHL or send him back to Oshawa kind of thing. Or maybe to the American League. Yeah.

depending on how things play out there. All right, one more before we get to the mailbag. I wanted to touch on Seattle, Corey, and you had four cracking centers, forwards, but possibly centers, in the top 30 of your overall under 23 ranking. And I don't know that I have a problem with any single one of them being there,

but I was just kind of noticing as I went through them that all of them still have this little bit of air of uncertainty to them, whether it's Baneers and the couple of quieter offensive seasons since his amazing rookie campaign, Shane Wright, and he had a fantastic year last season. So I think he earned his place there. But I think there's still some doubt about where he is. And then with Katten and O'Brien, it's what, you know, what's going to translate at the NHL level?

I'm just curious. Like, they appear here at number six. Scott, what did you think of that ranking before we let Corey kind of answer? That was the only one. And we had kind of talked and gone back and forth over text prior to the show about how I really, frankly, agreed with basically all of the loose places. that Corey has here might sort of move something around in the top five, but I think the top five or the top five and you go down the list, the bottom is the bottom and all of that. Seattle at six was the first and really only one where I just wasn't there. Their NHL core is one of the two or three weakest in the league for me.

If Vince Dunn is your best player, I think you've got a heck of a long way to go at the NHL level or insert whoever you think Seattle's best current player is. is. And then I like all four of those centers. I think you're going to have your three centers of the future there. And one of those guys probably ends up on the wing. And you've got a really good mix of young players who are all similarly aged up front. Yanni Nyman showed some promise last year in his NHL action. They have a couple of sort of wingers, like who knows what Carson Rakoff or Edward Shaulay or Yeager Furkis turns into. They may not turn into anything. But you could see a pack forward where they have the center depth and they've got some scoring wingers who can play on the power play.

They still don't have a goalie. I don't think Nicholas Coco's the goalie of the future there. They still don't have a premium defenseman to follow Vince Dunn. I just think there's a lot that they still would have to pull off in order to get, not just into Stanley Cup contention, but even into regular playoff contention there. And it could be four or five years before they're even close. Yeah. I mean, I would have, I think Kim Serrenen is the legit goalie prospect.

and I think the development of Riker Evans, I don't think he's a premium defenseman is also done, but he looks like a really damn good player. Like, this is already a guy who's been a team Canada men's player and has shown significant progress. And I think it's absolutely going to be a long-term quality top four defensemen. They need more of that. There's no question about it.

They need more to go with Evans and done. But I look at that four group, and I think Baneers, Wright, Caden, O'Brien, and those are absolutely core component type of forwards on a winning team. Like, I think the world of Maddie Baneers, I think he's going to be an absolute, just massive piece for Seattle for a long time. I think Berkeley Catton has star potential. I think he's going to be a 70-ish point type of center who drives play, maybe on the wing.

I think he's the one of those guys who probably pushes to the wing, probably right in Baneers or probably more traditional wing centers in O'Brien. and Cat and Mike B play the wings. I mean, those are all guys who can be your first. I'm not sure. And if they're winning, are they all first power play? One of them probably a second power play, maybe a Baneers or a right. But I think those are all really good players.

And it's, but it's an old team, obviously an expansion team, so a lot of spare parts on that team. But again, I think the question for me is not next year, two years or three years. Within the next 10 years, do I see a chance and put together a winning team? they'd have to address, add some more blue eyes here at some point, but I think, you know, the hardest thing to get are premium centers and premium defensemen. And they did a, you know, they found a way with a second round pick to get a premium young defenseman and Riker Evans. They've got a lot of, they've gotten drafting a lot of premium centers. And I think it's just a couple more good, you know, good moves away from having a core that's closer to,

like where Anaheim is than being closer to like where like say like Calgary is or whatever. I think the way I was looking at it in my head is I was, you know, I live in Detroit. I cover the Red Wing. So I think a lot about comparing things to Detroit. And I was thinking, would I rather have, yes,

I'd rather have Seattle's forward group here than Detroit's. But is the difference between Wright, Beneers, Katten, O'Brien, and Casper, Danielson, Bear,

and Raymond, actually, bigger than the gap that it is between Sider and Edvenson to what Seattle has at D. and I felt like, and not to mention in goal. So that's where I felt like I felt like Detroit would be above Seattle. Yeah, and I think that's perfectly reasonable.

I mean, you're talking about what was a six versus nine or something? Six and eight. Yeah, yeah, right. So, I mean, if you want to go that way, I'm not going to make us think about it. This would be more if you said, you know, whatever. You said Vancouver should be above Seattle. I don't like that.

I would have more questions. Yeah. All right. let's take a break right there. We'll come back and we got our first mailbag in a while. All right, we're back and we've got our first round of mailbag questions of, I'm going to call it this season. We're in September now. And remember, if you have a mailbag question for us, you can submit it to the link in the description of the episode. And we will be rolling through those throughout the year. First one is from Cliff D. He wanted it to be for Chris. And I have bad news, Cliff. And that's that Chris did not join us today. We could have saved it, but we kind of liked it. So we're going to go with it anyway. The Blackhawks went with Artem Levshanov over Ivan Demadov in 2024, then drafted Frondel this year to pick up a forward. If you play the what if game, Corey, if the Blackhawks would have taken Demadov last year,

which 2025 defenseman would have been the logical pick for them at number three? And would you prefer that to what they actually got in Levschenov and Frondel? So, 2025 defensemen? Yes. You mean the draft where a defenseman didn't go until nine? That's right. So they probably would have had to trade back, I guess, is the answer to the question. Yeah, I mean, just the guys we would all would have talked about, which would have been like Jackson Smith, Kachon Aitason, Reni and Murko, one of those guys.

And I think you would, I, Demadov's a great player. I think of any of these players, he's the best player. But I think you'd much rather have Lev Shunov and Frondel than Demadov and Murtker or Jackson Smith. All right. Next one, Scott, is from Luca D. It's a two-parter based around the idea that the flyers have a few good centers. You know, Trevor Zegris, Jet Lechenko, Jack Nesbitt in their system, maybe not that true 1C. He asks, one, do you think a team built around an elite winger group and multiple solid to good two Cs can win a cup?

And two, in your estimation, do the flyers have the wing pieces to be that kind of team? Well, I think to answer the latter part of the question, I think in Michkov and, And Konekne and Martone, you could well have three of the better wingers in the league. So certainly if those are three of your four, there's only four wingers in your top six. If it's Martone, Michikov and Kinekne, you're in a really good, really, really good spot. I like Owen Tippett a lot too. Yeah, I've never loved Owen Tippett. But can you win with that with a bunch of two Cs?

my reservation would be that I'm not I'm not even convinced that Jack Nesvitt and Jet Wuchenko both become two C's. I think you're happy if one of those guys becomes a two C and the other is a three C. Maybe you can lure someone in free agency, but it's hard to find a true one C

in free agency and I don't think you can rely on winning that bidding more because when those guys do hit free agency, there's always seven or eight teams in on them. So really the only path forward for them is to maybe you swing it by trade someday. Maybe you pull a sort of Matthew Kachukh one for one trade with one of your wingers for a center someday. Maybe you draft that player at some point and get lucky. I can't think,

frankly, and I thought about it prior to the show, I can't think of a team that has done it without a premium, premium center. Like even if you don't have the Sydney Crosby or Nathan McKinnon, someone has always had the Jonathan Taves or the Patrice Bergeron, the one C in that different sort of mold. Maybe the St. Louis blues, but I feel like we're always talking about the St. Louis blues is the exception. And O'Reilly belongs in that Bergeron-Tave's tier two, I think. And even, even that, I've always felt like we're talking about them as this exception as if it's, it's doable again. And I just don't think in today's NHL that it is, is doable. You look around the blue, the blues, Ruan required Jordan Biddington having the summer of his life, essentially.

And the stars have rupee hints and Wyatt Johnston, and maybe there's an argument to be made that neither of those are true first-line centers, but I think they're both low-end one-sees more than they are two-seas. So I don't know. I don't know what the path is for the Flyers. I think it's going to be very hard if they're counting on doing it on the back of Michikov and Martone and Connectney, unless Martone becomes like a, like a, Matthew Kachuk level player.

And Meechkov is that Kutrov, Panera and Kaprasov level player and you've got two superstar wingers. Maybe that's a unique way to go about it and they can sort of find a path through that way. But that's counting on a lot to go right in and of itself. And then you still need to get two very good centers to play with them even if they're not one C's. So the center ice position, it's no secret is the question that they're going to have to solve. You need at least one of those guys to have a one C year, right?

Like whether you put O'Reilly in that tier, he, 77 points and he won the Selke. That's a 1C by any definition. I was for some Flyer fans listening to this and being like, well, then why didn't you they just take James Hagan's or Jake O'Brien last year? And my answer would have been, if you look at my U23 list, well, I thought Poroamartone was significantly better than those guys. It's just so hard to get a first light center. There's, what, one of them a year, two, maybe?

And they usually go one or two in the draft. Yeah, it's, and that's not the rule. Like, you go through all the champions, you'll find guys at different spots, but traditionally it's the top five pick. Maybe the capitals and the way they did it. Like, Bactrum was on the backside of his career, but to Max's point, if you need a two C to have a once a year, I just pulled it up while you were talking here. And Evgeny Kuznetsov had 32 points in 24 games in that playoff run and led that team in

scoring over Ovechkin. So yeah, you need that Kuznetsov to step up, right? Yeah, well, that's like Phil Kessel, let the Penguins scoring during their playoff runs. I like that. All right. Jonathan B. Corey wants to know in regards to the Blue Jackets pipeline, how much of its strength hinges on Kaden Lindstrom's return to health and his production at MSU this season? He says it seems like he's the biggest wild card that could either be the one B to Fantili's 1A or end up as an injury-plagued winger in the middle six. Do you agree?

Yeah, I mean, sure, I agree. I mean, when I rank Lindstrom and when I rank the Blue Jacket's system, you have to put that uncertainty into the equation. I'm not saying what I definitively think Lynch was going to become. He's got to be one of the toughest evaluation I've ever done, quite frankly. Keep in mind with Kayne and Lindstrom, when he was in his draft year, the start of his draft year, he was not considered like a top, top prospect going into the draft that year. He was like a third or a fourth-line player for Canada at his Link of Gretzky.

He had a good 16-year-old year. Everyone loved the size, the skating, the physicality. But there were some offense questions there. Then he comes out of the gates roaring. He has basically two great months in the Western League where he tears up the league. And then he gets, basically hasn't played hockey for a year and a half. So I have no idea what he's going to be like. I don't know about his health.

I don't even know how good he's going to be in Michigan State this year. He could contend for the hobby. It could be like how Charlie Strambles, like the first college season went too for all we know. Like, there's some big questions with this player. So, yes, there's absolutely some variance. If he comes out of the gates, like, on a tear like he did in his draft year, and you're thinking, oh, well, he's 6-4 and he can fly, and he's physical. You're like, okay, this could be like Dylan Larkin again or whatever,

or an even accentuated version of that. And you think, this is amazing. There's some questions whether, like, the question has, is he even an NHL center or not? Can he make plays as an NHL center? I think there's a lot of questions he has to answer, and he'll be one of the most watched players in hockey this year, presuming he's always healthy.

All right. Next one is really interesting from Michael B. Who replaces Connor McDavid as the best player in the world, Scott? And when does that happen? This is a question that I've literally spent all day thinking about. My knee jerk would be one of the guys who's only a couple of years, like two or three years behind him in age, rather than going to a celebrini type,

because I don't think Nathan McKinnon or Kail McCar or those types are going anywhere anytime soon. But you do wonder once all of those guys start to get into your 30s, whether there emerges a real challenger, I thought about Jack Eichel here. But it's, I don't know whether Eichel gets there as the true sort of best player in the league unless someone sort of really emerges to surpass him. So maybe it is ultimately what I came back to is maybe it is Macklin or Connor. Maybe one of those guys really has to step up and sort of emerge as this transcendent superstar and Connor's scoring 50 goals a year. And Maclin is that Celebrini or Maclin is that sort of Bergeron level player. Crosby, yeah.

Yeah, the Crosby Bergeron level player because it doesn't feel like we can't get carried away with future drafts. So I would never talk about Gavin McKenna or whoever else in that conversation. I don't think Tim Stutzla gets there. Like I just don't think any of those players are those sort of guys who are in that 80 to 90 point range are going to get to that 120, 130 point range that we've seen Dreisaitel and McKinnon and Pasturnaq get to. And all of those guys are similarly aged. So once all of those guys start to age, I don't know whether there's anybody other, anybody naturally other than a celebrini or a Bada. Now, maybe McKinnon holds it, maybe if McDavid eventually starts to hit a bit of a while, maybe McKinnon holds it for a year. And then McCar holds it for a year. And sort of like Eric

Carlson briefly held it there between sort of down years for Crosby and Ovechkin kind of thing, where Eric Carlson for a time was the best player in the world. But there isn't that next, like, I don't think there's that next Crosby, McDavid, even in Celebrini or Bedard, as great as they are. Yeah, similar to the way the torch passed from Crosby to McDavid, it could be right around 33, 34 for McDavid. And if Celebrini continues on the trajectory and is that kind of consummate winner, I think you'd have to have a lot of success for it to be Celebrini because that's, that's his game.

He's not going to be the point total to challenge McDavid. But if he's winning a cup or two and he's 24, 25 and the clear best player, that's when I think the argument would start. And the Olympics seems to make those players too. Like if Celebrini's the 1C on Team Canada at the Olympics and that kind of a thing, that you start to have a different conversation about the player. Going to be a long time no matter what. Jesse J.

says, which young defenseman do you see winning a Norris trophy first, Corey? Does not need to be under 23, but someone who has not won one yet and who will win the most. I feel like a year ago, the easy answer to this would have been hasted. Yes. Because you just thought,

the skating, the offense, the two-way play. He's a number one D on a great team. But I guess there's always been a kind of a minor question with Hayeskidon. Is he a special offensive player or not? You know, he wasn't the power play guy in Dallas because of John Klingberg. And then Klingberg leaves and then he becomes the guy.

And now then Harley kind of takes that job this past year. Obviously, Hayeskidon was injured at points. He feels like the knee-jerk answer. But if he doesn't have like a massive offensive year, and I'm not convinced that Harley's for sure the first power play guy. a long term. I think that's a situation where that could flip flop and they run two power play units and depends on, you know, which one's going well, whatever kind of thing. He feels like the obvious one. If I had to go up plan B, I'll say Jake Sanderson.

Sanderson was going to be my answer, especially as Ottawa rises and he seems like he's going to get such huge deployment there. There's a lot of ingredients for there. How about you, Scott? I think Dalene's Dalene would be my pick. He's 25. He's got the next three or four years, maybe five to really give it a run. I wouldn't be surprised if he won one of the next five kind of thing. I think Dalene's capable.

And if he does it, it would come with really elevating the sabres out of where they've lingered. And he'd get bonus points for the talking point of all of that and the narrative of all of that. And the other one, obvious one, I guess the question is if he couldn't win last year, when is he ever going to win it would have been Wawenski? He was on my MVP ballot.

That was an unbelievable season. But is it the high water mark? Yeah. He's kind of not the end of his career, but it's mid-ish, mid-end right now, right? I do wonder, like, points have been such a governing factor in the award for a while now, but I wonder if there's a little momentum for it to be one of these more, like, game-controlling two-way types, more offense than like a Jacob Slavin. They need to be first power play.

Yes, McAvoy and other. Yeah, they need to have like significant power play deployment to even have a chance at that. Yeah. All right. Next one is from Michael D. Sticking on the defenseman theme, Scott. Michael D. D says he's setting the over under on sub six foot one defenseman taken in the first round of this year's draft at one and a half.

Do you take the over or the under? I'd take the over. This question is basically, do you think Ryan Lynn and Xavier Villeneuve are both going to go in the first round? I think Ryan Lynn's a lock, too, and I think Savvy Villeneuve probably will. He was the reigning QMJHL defenseman of the year. He may be the two-time reigning QMJL defenseman of the year by then. Say what you will about the QMJL and the way that that league has trended over the last decade or so since the McKinnon and the Drouin and the Ellers days and all of that.

And it's all true. There isn't the premium talent there anymore. But I think Villeneuve is going to be viewed or compared all year. to the sort of those fringe first rounders, the Samuel Girards, the Olinzell-Wagers, those sort of high-end offensive types who were on the smaller side, who all ended up going in the 30s or the 40s.

I think Villeneuve has a chance to be a cut above those guys and sort of go in the 20s, though, for example. I know Corey and I are both very high on him. So, yeah, I'd go over there. I think wins a rock, and I think Villeneuve will play his way into being one or close. I'll say under. All right. And then last one to Corey.

Rick S asks, what growth does NTP defenseman Luke Scherer need to achieve this season with the U-18s to earn a first round ranking from the athletic? Well, first he's actually shown some physical growth. He came into NTP camp about an inch taller. Then he was a year ago. He's about 6.3 now. So now he's 6'3 and a right shot D who can skate well and can make a reliable first pass.

So already that's a pretty exciting package. which share the questions with him last year were just how consistent his puck play was. I think that we're, you know, he ran one of their power play units and I think he showed decent hockey sense, but I don't think the creativity and the instincts always really shown in his games. I think there's some minor questions. Like, he's not overly physical. So I think those are some minor things to worry about there. But him and Casey Mutron are the two guys that NHL Scouts are the most excited about

on the program this year for this year's draft. There's some Sammy Nelson's the best pro prospect on that team. He's a late birth, though. So I think he's got a chance to be a first rounder. And I think with the fact, he's grown a little bit if he comes into the year and plays well in the opening months, I think you'll see him on my first round range when I do a list. But just some Meyer questions based on what I saw from the last year, but he's a good player. I saw him at U-17 Challenge in Sarnie, I think, and it was a really impressive package of tools.

And you just wanted to see it kind of come to fruition. I think, Scott, you have any thoughts on Cher? No, I was just going to say similar to U-17s, if you'd ask this question a year ago, I think that would have been, the answer would be yes, but that felt like his high point for me. Like, I've watched a few of his games on tape since then, and I just haven't seen, like, confident first-round rating type of defenseman. Like, I think he's a good player, but I'm not, I'm not convinced this year, I think will mean a lot for him. A lot of season left, a lot of time, I mean, entire season left. a lot of time left for him to work his way into that first round. All right, that's going to do it for us.

Thanks for listening to this episode of the Athletic Hockey Show Prospect series. You can read the rebuild rankings on theathletic.com. We'll talk to you soon.