2023 NHL Draft Rankings — Top 32
Detailing the process more than ever before.
February is a good time for a first list with an obnoxiously long writeup to match.
“It won’t be that long this year”, I say to myself as I slowly watch this document transform into a monstrosity over the last few months. At least this time there seems to be a genuine purpose for the length as I’m doing something a bit different with this list, now finally ready to be shared talent evaluators and draft fans alike. May you all enjoy my self-crafted idiocy.
Every player is a puzzle box. It doesn’t take long to get a feel for their strengths, weaknesses and areas of improvement, but it can take quite a while to really get a grasp on the projectability of what you’re watching. The more you try to solve the projectability issue, the more questions come up that must be answered in order to better understand the player and what they are to offer over the next few years. We search for clarity within their details, answering each question until the riddle feels solved.
The fun part about being a scout is that often these answers just turn into more damn questions.
Understanding these puzzles is what drives me to be who I am as a scout. It also takes a lot of time, and while enough has passed for me to be confident enough to release my thoughts, there will obviously be changes come draft time, some of them quite considerable. Despite the effort put into my work here, this list doesn't matter in any functional sense. It's a mid-season list, this is simply me finally opening the window, inviting you into the dumb chaos that is my thought process as I inch closer to the final product to be released in June. If the draft was to suddenly be tomorrow, I’d imagine it would probably change quite a bit.
This writeup exists mostly to challenge and hold myself accountable in the logic I use to piece a list together. So, this writeup will have the discussion points I think are key when evaluating the players — some a summary of their playstyle and/or tools, some a conversation about projectability, and some get more focus on unique talking points for themselves. All of it in an attempt to best understand these puzzles individually, and then to compare them amongst each other. On top of the unique writeup for each player, they also get a paragraph at the end explaining why they are at that specific ranking. Why is Player X specifically above Player Y? Why is the player ranked 13th actually at 13 instead of 11, 15 or 18? What argument keeps them behind the top 12? What keeps them ahead of the rest? Going through each player with this process takes a lot of time, hence my initial list coming out in February. Your logic has to be consistent, and every time it’s not you need to understand why it’s okay in this specific case.
I place a lot of weight into how a scout’s philosophy impacts their rankings. Everyone has their own preference towards how hockey is to be played, and that alone is enough to creep into our evaluations. Every one of us, from public to private, are susceptible to our own biases when scouting. These biases can make it very easy for us to leave a mountain of logical gaps when designing a list without even realizing it. I think the best names aren’t just aware of the limitations this causes, but have mastered applying them into their analysis — weaponizing those biases with tremendous efficiency by understanding their respective strengths and weaknesses. A balancing act of humility and confidence. As mundane as this all sounds, understanding the psychology of the scout themselves is equally as important as understanding their work. It’s what makes the Scouch’s, St-Louis’, Brown’s, Henderson’s and Holm’s (RIP his Twitter) of the world so impactful and why their work would translate into the private sphere if the day ever came. On the flip side, I think a scout’s credibility withers a bit if there are logical leaps all over the place. Of course, expecting perfect logic borders on impossible — scouting is more art than science and exceptions to the code exist everywhere. Still, one should be able to look at a first round and be able to see consistent trends within the players that particular scout likes, the players they’re lower on and the players that are not present. Hopefully that is the case with mine, but we’ll see if it holds up to public scrutiny.
Feel free to skip to the list itself below as there’s slightly more rambling to be done, this time on biomechanics. With this project, I feel inclined to share my perspective towards incorporating biomechanics into scouting considering it’s not really something I’ve ever spoken on before. It factors into why players are where they are, so as much as I want to cut it out to reduce word count, it’s better than repeating the same points throughout.
I have slightly beyond introductory level knowledge into kinesiology, but I am not educated in it to any extent where what I say about biomechanics actually carries weight in terms of projectability. This isn’t to say that biomechanics aren’t important as they absolutely are. Being limited biomechanically means you only have a select few plays at any given time considering it’s hard to be deceptive and feed misinformation when your body is literally telegraphing what your options are. Playing outside those options is a quick way to be a turnover machine or get yeeted by the opposition.
However, the human body is remarkably complex. Physical development from 18-23 should be viewed in a case-by-case sense. Straight up, I am not good enough to break down each case with the care the players deserve from video footage alone. Very few are. Sure, I can tell you about a knee bend, someone’s hip activation, how a player’s upper and lower body support specific on-ice actions like their shot and all of the other buzzwords. For players that already have those things, assuming they’re also really good at actually playing hockey, it’s nothing but a bonus; however, I’m not overly critical of players with biomechanical quirks unless it’s so blatant that you can’t possibly ignore it. I’ve spoken with the few I know who have both a university-level kinesiology education and the hockey knowledge needed to apply it and the general theme is that just knowing a deeper issue exists beneath the surface isn’t enough to determine the future physical development of a prospect. Some teams invest a ton into their development staff and have the means to correct things that other teams wouldn’t be able to. Considering there are players every year who either bypass these seemingly insurmountable physical limitations, or just make the NHL with them anyways because what they offer on the ice is enough to circumvent the limitation, I’m inclined to believe that.
I view scouting as if I am going to continue working with the player after the selection is made. It’s not just hands-off, there’s a specific development path in-mind. I assume (or, hope) that the development staff working with questionable biomechanics have the education to alleviate the issue. As a result, I tend to rate great hockey players with some biomechanical issues higher if I believe that new parts of their game can be unlocked with expanding their tools. It’s not a perfect system, but neither is underrating fantastic hockey players because of a few biomechanical quirks so there really isn’t a perfect solution for public scouts. Regardless of which way you lean, scouts on both sides know that their approach would be more efficient if they had the resources private scouts do. We’re just doing what we can with what we have, knowing it’s imperfect. So unless the best part of a good player’s game does not feel projectable due to biomechanical deficiencies that feel really hard to fix with development, I’d rather take them than the player who has issues playing with pace or reading the game even though they’re mechanically clean. It’s not like the good players won’t mitigate their weaknesses with development, both physically and mentally. The latter is super important because the NHL is stupidly hard and it’s really easy to diminish the gargantuan gap in quality between the leagues we scout and the league we’re scouting for. The NHL will continue to only get harder as this era demands more and more, and being anything less than awe-inspiringly good at the actual game itself will render your awe-inspiring toolkit completely useless. Players don’t change their playstyles too much between the draft and their NHL debut after all and while exceptions obviously exist, good luck guessing who they are without interviews.
Every time this needs to be referenced, I’m tapping the sign.
Note: If anyone is educated on it and can disprove anything about what I’ve said regarding biomechanics then I’d really appreciate a DM.
So yeah, sorry about the philosophical/biomechanical word-vomit. Kinda had to be explained because it’s intrinsically connected to a lot of players. I plan on releasing two more of these between this initial list and the final writeup, so that there are four releases that (hopefully) chronicle the logic I’ve used putting this together. It's a better way to get insight into my process, hold myself accountable for lapses in logic/judgment, have others catch clear lapses in judgment that I cannot see for myself and, hopefully, it’s entertaining and engaging. If you don't want to read the whole thing then, yeah, I get it. This shit is not overly accessible for a quick read because I apparently don't know how to stop writing, so here's a nice pretty picture of everything. If something stands out, scroll to it!
Tier One - The King
Duh.
1: Connor Bedard
It almost feels like a waste of time to fill in this blurb. We all know who Connor Bedard is and what he is capable of. Any idea of him being challenged has been nothing short of obliterated as this legendary campaign continues. Even with Fantilli committing atrocities against NCAA players on a nightly basis, it’s still not enough. As the greatest TV character of all time once said..
Why #1: You have to play 37D chess to try and talk him out of that spot… but then again, his point streak ended, so he probably sucks.
Tier Two - The Leviathans
Worthy of first overall in the average year.
2: Adam Fantilli
Another write-up where I don’t feel obligated to write too much yet. (Keep an eye out for my debut McKeen’s piece this year though)
We all know who this absurd Michigan player is, the one who is utterly torching NCAA production in a way that even his most esteemed fans prior to the season never expected. It’s not really a surprise considering Adam Fantilli has every single tool one can think of and the brain to chain it all together. Explosivity from a lull, high-end top speed, sharp lateral adjustments, lateral acceleration, flawless handling, protecting the puck with the full extent of his reach, picture perfect mapping of the ice, advanced play recognition, an audacious bag of skill-moves, a 360 camera mounted inside of his head, control thru contact, a hilarious shot, etc. I can go on. The list is stupidly long.
Fantilli could be five inches shorter and still be a monster of a player. Add the power forward frame and yeah, that’s enough to genuinely contend for (and likely be) first overall in four of the last six drafts. Players who can do what Fantilli does are highly coveted but seldom found, mostly because their existence itself is a rarity. Fortunately for those picking outside of the top two, there is another highly skilled power-forward to select, but Fantilli possesses an audacity in his game that allows his tools to dominate in a way that no one but Bedard does.
Why #2: There’s pretty much no argument for first at this point, but I think I’m now at the “no one else has an argument for second” point with Fantilli as well. Unlike Bedard, that is subject to change if one of Carlsson or Michkov decide to enter sicko-mode for the season’s final stretch. Good luck though, the bar they have to clear is currently so high that it bumped into the International Space Station.
3: Leo Carlsson
Leo Carlsson is the best bet to dethrone Fantilli at #2. He’s also the player people think Juraj Slafkovsky can be. I don’t mention him just to pounce on him, I am a Habs fan myself after all. I simply think the easiest way to explain this next point is to use Slafkovsky (and Power, I guess) as a reference: this is now the third player in this draft that would challenge for first in the last two drafts (and likely win out, again). That’s why he’s earned this spot in Tier Two even if I don’t see him passing Fantilli. 2023 Draft be wild.
His puck control is seamless whether he’s using every millimeter of his wingspan or handling in-tight to the body, bested only by Fantilli (which is just more proof of how ridiculous Adam is). He’s a transitional monster who is a massive threat for controlled entries through both passing or carrying. Full reach alteration meets his superb vision everytime Leo is looking to find space, open a lane up, create a dangerous chance or just straight up drive the net. This can be done from a standstill, escaping off the boards or while in-motion. He has gifted movement and control for his size and really uses it well to tie everything together in a nice, pretty bow.
His frame isn't overly filled out at this point which leads to some engagements where stronger professionals will push him off the puck, but his resilience alone tells you how scary he will be with years of strength training. The World Jr’s provided a glance into what a fully developed Carlsson is capable of against weaker opponents as he basically mauled any and everything in his way despite being one of the youngest attendees. It’s safe to assume Carlsson will refine the skill/manipulation aspect even more as he ages and adapts to smaller ice. To what extent is difficult to say, but there’s plenty of reason to believe it’ll go well. The combination of strength, skill, mobility and sophistication is just too good to doubt his star projection.
Why #3: The giant Swede combines his power game with awe-inspiring finesse in a way that feels distinctively reminiscent of the Swedish monsters of old — carrying some archetypical similarities to Mats Sundin. There's obviously a pretty solid chance that Leo Carlsson is not an all time great as his is more of a playstyle comparison than anything; however, it's becoming more and more clear that the possibility exists. Tool blends like this are rare. He can play a forechecking, cycling or a rushing role in the offensive zone and is a high-end manipulator in each role by leveraging his shot threat, reach, skill moves, lateral agility and physical prowess to move bodies out of pivotal lanes. It’s not a lock but it’s beyond obvious there is 1C potential here. Add the safety in his floor (likely 2C, high end 3C in the absolute worst case) due to playing a more professional-style game already compared to Fantilli’s and yeah, that's a slam dunk #3 in my eyes.
Tier Three - The Phenoms
A stupid level of quality between 4-7.
4: Zach Benson
A literal hockey genius, a claim I don't make lightly.
Intelligent manipulators in one-on-one micro-play that also possess incredible sense for the details that make up five-on-five macro-play are always going to be high on my list. Out of the last few drafts, I think there's a pretty strong argument that Benson's feel for the game is as good as anybody's. Hence the fourth overall position in a loaded draft.
The tools present may not be enough to become the guy on the first line, something that can be said about the names he’s surrounded by. Technically it’s not impossible.. but it's not a bet I'd be making. A bet I would make is that Benson is the guy you want playing beside the guy driving your first line. His game ticks off every box you want from a secondary player on an elite NHL line. That doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement relative to the others in this tier, but I don’t think being the secondary option removes the value he brings. If Benson is playing with someone who possesses elite NHL tools then I think he can step up as the primary playdriver on a lot of shifts. Finding an elite number two that can make number one’s life easier in every possible way is exceptionally difficult, there’s not a lot of players in the league that actually thrive in this type of role. Players like Benson are the one’s becoming superstars in advanced analytics.
Against top, first pairing NHL competition he may not have what it takes to deconstruct defensive structures to create space for his team, but if someone else has tools that demand defensive overcorrections then that will force gaps to open around the ice. I have full confidence that Benson will exploit those gaps multiple times a shift. He connects plays and elevates the macro-impact of his line in a way that you simply cannot teach, it’s that gigabrain that simply processes information better than everyone. Still, the question that determines his final standing in this absurd top ten is the tools — especially when the rest of this tier is right at his door, two of them possessing clearly superior toolkits.
Apparently, as the story from back in the WHL Draft days supposedly goes, people liked Benson’s brain, thought process and fantastic scoring but weren't sure if the tools were enough to survive such a jump in competition. Then he adjusted with very little wrinkles and became one of the best players in no time. It sounds exceptionally familiar, almost like I could read the paragraphs preceding this one and find a similar sentiment. It also gives me that “gut feeling” that while Benson’s ceiling should be limited by his tools by all conventional thought.. maybe he breaks those conventions? If a player is to be impactful in ways far beyond the sum of their individual parts, would that player’s description not match Benson’s? There’s such an exact science to the way Benson impacts the game and while his tools are supposed to limit him at the next level, I can’t shake the idea that he’s going to be as good as the star center he’s with permits him to be. Crosby, MacKinnon, Eichel, Matthews.. he’d be unbelievable with any of them. Sure, a lot of players are obviously better beside the best centers in the league, but I specifically mean that adding Benson to the line would make them legitimately one of the best lines in the world. Imagine Benson w/ Bergeron and Pastrnak? It’s not outlandish to say he’s the better player in that role than the names to follow.
I don’t want to make it seem like Benson has weak tools or is completely undeserving of a top ten pick. He’s a brilliant skater, especially for lateral movement which compliments his game about as well as it could compliment anyone with the way he rotates in and out of play, picking nothing but pivotal moments to strike. He’s got good handling skill, what he lacks in pure shooting power is made up for in positioning and timing, and he’s a surprisingly durable player. While I do lean towards Benson not having a whole lot of tool development left, it can absolutely get better. To what extent, I don’t know. Depends on who drafts him.
He’d also be incredible for Suzuki and Caufield. Just saying.
Why #4: Zach Benson’s upside as the guy isn’t comparable to some of the names around him and for that reason alone, I wouldn’t fight at a draft table about taking him above those also in this tier.. Seeing him become a year-in, year-out PPG scoring winger is not the expectation and in a draft loaded with talent and tools, it feels a bit out of touch to have him as a top five guy when there is such clear upside in names like Michkov and Smith coming up. Yet I still can’t imagine myself passing on him for anyone but the three names ahead because Benson is the epitome of a player who wins hockey games. Once it’s the seventh pick and the other three are gone then I have a really, really tough time passing on Zach and would be Buffalo Bills-ing through the draft table demanding we select him. The type of player that rival fans may laugh at on Twitter if he was taken fourth, only to score 25G, 40A compared to Michkov’s 40G, 40A.. but also the type of player that’d have that team’s fans turn the replies into a Yu-Gi-Oh duel as everyone takes turns posting their JFresh card trying to beat Benson’s seemingly inevitable 95% WAR.
5: Andrew Cristall
I wouldn't necessarily say this is a stat that should be tracked, but I'm pretty sure Andrew Cristall is leading all draft eligibles in "how the fu** did he escape that" per 60.
Cristall may not be the best goal scorer available. He may not be the best pure playmaker available either. He has a strong argument in both, but there are others who are exceptionally talented in those areas. What I will say is that, outside of Bedard (and probably Fantilli), Cristall is the best small area manipulator in the draft. Maybe the last three drafts to be honest, although I haven’t spent too much time confirming that. His escapability and craftiness are littered with so many details that I can write about it for hours. The easiest way to summarize how he's consistently performing magic on the ice is to say he sees solutions to small area problems that the competition can’t even envision. A smart prospect is one who is setting a trap with their first move to manipulate their target as they wish. Cristall is out here planning 3-4 moves ahead, trapping and baiting with each one. A type of thinking that's just so rare and you cannot teach, similar to Benson but one focused on sheer creation instead of driving play through subtle details. Cristall has almost all of the tools to make it work in the NHL as well. It’s utterly ridiculous. I am fully aware of how hyperbolic this all sounds. I even deleted this paragraph, wrote another one and then decided to undo it because the lack of hyperbole meant Cristall’s sheer badassery wasn’t expressed properly.
But there was that brief mention of “almost all of the tools to match”.
There is a fair concern that he doesn't gain as much separation as one would like to make this playstyle super projectable. It's becoming less and less of a secret that the NHL values Andrew Cristall less than the public side does, and while it typically screams as an example of "the NHL overvaluing size", there is a bit of a truth with this. I've graduated out of rookie scout status with enough years of lessons learned to be called.. whatever is above a rookie, and there is something to be made of the size/skating complaint. Players who don’t meet a certain size/mobility threshold can pretty much be guaranteed to fail in the league, even if they utterly dominate every league leading up to the NHL. I’ve ranked players below this threshold high before because I had convinced myself that they had the means to be an exception to the rule. What happened? Well, I found out the hard way that very few exceptions exist after all. One of the tells can be players that don’t overly participate in the DZ, use the same few patterns when advancing up the ice and clearly prefer to play at one pace. That describes Cristall pretty well.. so yeah, there are concerns and they are undeniably legitimate.
Obviously this ranking reflects that I haven’t learned my lesson as I still believe he is an exception, as do many others in the public sphere, but we don't have an NHL job on the line. I feel compelled to say this now because I think Twitter will melt down when Cristall falls through the draft. The reality is that there is a non-insignificant chance that Cristall's lack of explosivity keeps him behind in play, especially when he's already a player who's biggest in-motion strength is altering pace and weaponizing gravity. It doesn't matter how good you are as a small area manipulator if you aren't able to avoid contact from athletic phenoms constantly pressuring you at an absurd pace. Limited weapons means limited options, which is not something that can just be ignored with Andrew. Hell, what makes Cristall so good right now is that he is about as good as anyone at threatening his weapons in misleading ways, purposefully chaining each layer of deceptive information to open up the exact space he wants to make the exact play he envisioned from the beginning. It feels like he comes up with a brand new concoction of fake threats at just about every encounter, which is obviously more hyperbole, but it also emphasizes how sensational his problem solving really is. This part of his game not functioning as intended will create a question of identity for Cristall that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s “boom or bust” (I think he’s just too smart to not play), but does mean his impact in the league would be a lot lower than expected. He’d also need a coach that’d even want to play him.
Why #5: I will take the gamble at five right now. The repetitive patterns in his game do tell a cautionary tale that are hard to ignore because of some flashy, Marner/Kane-esque highlights. I understand the cooling on Andrew as a result. Personally, I think any player capable of manufacturing such complexities in small areas is just too smart to not adapt and add to his game when it hits a wall. Some think these overused tendencies, rush-patterns and off-puck habits exist simply because he doesn’t cover space fast enough. They aren’t entirely wrong either, the questions probably wouldn’t exist if there was more oomph in his skating, though I do think there’s a bit more depth to it than that. When compared to the average WHL player, I believe Cristall is more than smart enough to make up for that and find tons of space through anticipation alone. The fact that he isn’t makes me, maybe naively, believe that he’s reading the game far ahead of where his teammates are and they miss opportunities he provides them. They just don’t see it and as a result he tends to gravitate towards the same areas. The more I watch him off-puck, the more I can see the patterns in his game where he’s opened himself as an outlet, with space that he’s prepared to attack whatever pressure comes his way, only for no pass to come because the timing window was brief. Cristall then just kinda floats around the blue line, waiting for the pass and then rushes up ice, slows down, draws in pressure and passes out to whatever is open. So while it may be an issue for projectability now, there’s reason to believe it’s not a long term concern. After all, he’s second in draft eligible WHL per game scoring so it’s not really something that demands a solution now. It’s obviously working, and it’s disingenuous to the player to believe he must show public scouts evidence to the contrary or else we’ll start to drop him during this final stretch of the season once we start to hear what range he’ll really be going in the draft. As for any skating improvements, well:
6: Matvei Michkov
Higher than expected considering this whole thing, yeah?
Let’s really quickly talk about that. Michkov had many strengths that led to high scoring totals, but projecting that style of play to the NHL wasn’t so cut and dry. It’d work, but to what extent, and what players were you leaving on the board to take on that risk?
Well, those answers no longer matter because he’s changed the questions themselves. Probably the best example I’ve ever had as to why my first list doesn’t usually come out until this time of year. I intended on breaking that tradition by releasing one earlier, hence the impulse to write and justify such a visibly audacious take a few months back. I pushed releasing said list back for this reason — nothing comes out for the sake of it, only when I know my thoughts/theories/whatever-they’re-called are fully thought out and carry a level of adamance.
“I think that Michkov has a lot of strengths and certainly has a lot of potential, but I do think there are legitimate concerns in his projectability. I'm really hoping that the move to a new team can provide clearer answers.” - some idiot, circa December 2022.
On the real, I still vehemently stand by my words in that piece for the time it was written, but the draft isn’t held in December 2022 and shit has changed because of the move to Sochi. Like Lambert last year, Michkov transferred out of one environment that was hindering his abilities due to a boatload of unique circumstances into one that was arguably worse. Unlike Lambert, this environment allows for Michkov to actually play within the confines of a 5v5 system instead of yolo-ing and doing it with minimal regard for the opportunities his linemates were providing him. It may not be the best team, but so long as Michkov is playing well within the team then I literally do not care. I'm very happy to be wrong.
Now I won’t be rescinding every word I wrote, especially the parts discussing his tools and the upside that comes with them, or else he would be #4; however, it is entirely possible he gets there by year’s end as the rest of the details have been filled in beautifully. I’d say he’s trending towards joining Tier Two more than any other player is. After all, it’s not like the tools haven’t shown improvement themselves — physicality being the most obvious example, making his tendency for puck protection much more projectable. The appalling inefficiencies that muddied his prior projection have seemingly been reduced to some bad mistakes that you’d see from just about every top ten pick at one point or another. He's now capitalizing on clear strengths such as give-and-go playmaking, area passing and gaining middle-ice in the OZ as they've increased in both frequency and efficiency. It’s obvious that these were areas in his game that existed before as a strength but the way that they came to life with just the flip of a switch leads me to think there was obviously some sort of dramatic misfit between himself and SKA in some way or another (I couldn’t begin to guess what it actually is). Add these improvements alongside his gifted off-puck game that makes him such a dangerous shooter, and then also consider that he’s now using his off-puck game to be a better facilitator. Yeah, he’s good!
I do believe that had Michkov remained in that system for the entire year then the skepticism around Matvei would have increased. That piece led to a handful of conversations with interesting folk who may not have been at that point yet but were becoming concerned, so it’s possible that a year in that system really does hurt his draft stock like I was initially thinking. However, it’s entirely likely that many wouldn’t because they believed in the underlying details assisting him in a new system.. which is literally what happened. They were right. I may have jumped the gun a bit early, but it was a thought-challenge piece released in December so.. who cares. I can take an L.
The important thing is that, even though I still am not as high on his peak upside as others, he’s back to being sick as all hell and a welcome addition to this tier of phenoms. All in all, Michkov does belong closer to the top three than away from them. Eleventh is dumb and whoever initially thought that should be ashamed of himself!
Why #6: I still don’t think the tools indicate that there is franchise potential in this player, or that he can be the primary option on one of the league’s best lines. They are sensational, but they are also maximized in a way that requires a line to play around him. That can be a benefit or a flaw depending on your perspective, but I tend to prefer players that can be more diverse with how their strengths compliment a top line. He needs to have the right type of center to maximize his strengths in transition and in the OZ, while also covering for Michkov’s potential DZ flaws (not that it’s a big deal because he’s a winger and Cristall is arguably worse in this regard). This is slightly different from Benson, who I said also “needs” a star center. In that case, Benson really elevates the cast he supports so he’s still going to be excellent anywhere in a lineup with just about any combination of players. Benson can play along the first line and drive play along any combination of players, and then go play in the middle six and elevate whatever line is struggling. This luxury does not exist in Michkov, I absolutely can picture line combinations that limit him. A scout I trust a lot who adores Michkov has even mentioned that he thinks you have to build around Matvei. I agree, and if everything goes well then I think you have a player that is more valuable than Benson or Cristall. I also think you can argue the opportunity cost of picking Michkov as the guy your team builds around instead of taking Benson, biding time and finding a Celebrini/Misa/Hagens type player in the next few years. That also requires luck, as well as time, so you can easily argue the flaws of passing on a player who can theoretically be the main impact forward for your franchise; however, committing everything to someone that may not pan out as the main guy is such a scary thought that I still carry hesitation. There’s a lot of additional variables within your team that need to work out for Michkov to be top dawg on a cup contender. Nevertheless, I do think it’s a helluva lot easier to picture Michkov killing it on the first line in the NHL than it was a few months ago and him passing Benson isn’t a shocking concept to me whatsoever. I think Cristall may be slipping behind Michkov in projectability, but I think improving Andrew’s skating does more for his game than any individual improvement can do for Michkov. In that case, Cristall’s absurd, game-breaking upside wins out. It’s easy to see an explosive Cristall dominating alongside just about any combination of top six forwards. It’s also riskier by a fair bit so I can see Michkov passing him by year’s end as well. Also, just to throw this in there somewhere, getting a few years of guaranteed development in Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing, because I can absolutely see how rushing him to the show can harm his potential.
7: Oliver Moore
Oliver Moore is likely to finish as the #1 USA player this year even though Smith and Brindley are still in the fight. He’s so entrenched in this tier with Cristall, Benson and Michkov. I don’t think it’s even unreasonable to say that he is the best combination of projectability, upside, floor and tools existing within this grouping. Moore is simply one of the most gifted skaters in recent memory. It’s reinforced with fantastic puck control at all speeds and a willingness to change paces to weaponize the opposition’s momentum against them. The combination of it all can be awe-inspiring at times. Finishing as high as fourth overall is a legitimate possibility, one I can’t say right now about the other Americans. That’s earned him his tier boost.
He’s a natural center through and through. He had a stint on the wing this year and it was clear that his tools allowed him to lead transitions pretty successfully, but he didn’t know what to do once he gained the zone first as well as someone like Will Smith or Ryan Leonard. This is what made people, myself included, dismiss just how elite Moore really was and sent him into upper mid-first territory. Come December, that really started to change.
The biggest reason for this is Oliver prefers to play in middle-ice and follow the wingers up, reading lanes as they develop since he knows his speed closes gaps very quickly. The excess information provided to him allows for more tactful attacks that force dramatic defensive shifts very quickly, else they get burned by his feet alone for a dangerous chance. It may not look as flashy as Smith dangling the pants off of sixteen players, the entire coaching staff and four front office executives simultaneously to break a DZ structure apart, but it’s equally as impactful and also a helluva lot more projectable. That’s why Moore doesn’t have to leverage his great hands nearly as much to create slot passes, dangerous shots or escape complex pressure — usually his feet have already broken the structure apart and created valuable space somewhere, so all his hands have to do is beat the leftover defensive layer that is challenging him. In those conditions, Moore can achieve as much with a shoulder fake and a slip pass as Smith can by breaking three sets of ankles consecutively. To make it even more convincing, Moore’s skating means those conditions are created much easier for him than what Smith needs to succeed — one’s game is built around manipulating through motion, which compliments his elite skill that NHL defenders will struggle with, and the other is built around manipulating through skill and creativity, which can cause struggles but the setup to execute it will be much harder. Easiest way to find a star in the draft is to find players with unreal tools who can frequently use those tools to create the conditions they’re comfortable with, and then leverage those tools even further within those conditions to make dangerous things happen. It’s all extremely projectable.
Moore is an unreal skater today by NHL standards. Maybe he can get a bit faster and a bit shiftier, but what is most important is that he will get even more familiar with how to break apart cohesive defenses with it and really learn how to leverage the advantage it creates. That’s the scariest thing about Oliver Moore: he still doesn’t seem to fully understand how game-breaking he can be at times. It’s a truly incredulous set of knife-shoes.
I’d like to shoutout Austin Brass as the Oliver Moore hype-train conductor. I think claiming players is almost always pointless meandering on Twitter (unless you’re me yelling about Hutson before 21’-22’ even started) that doesn’t actually mean anything, but Austin was singing Moore’s song behind the scenes before the season even started so he gets the brownie points as far as I’m concerned.
Why #7: Even if the offensive game doesn’t fully develop, Moore doesn’t need to outscore the other USNTDP players to be more valuable than them. He’s a controlled exit and entry robot, with fantastic passing efficiency and a great defensive presence that can be exceptionally annoying to deal with as the opposing puck carrier. Add the OZ upside (that has done nothing but get better in spades all year long) and it’s pretty clear he can be as high as four by year's end. It’d take numerous players all showing clear evidence that their paths carry the same level of upside/safety to knock him down. It’s not impossible, but I wouldn’t describe it as likely. Even then.. he likely falls to maybe ninth at worst? I’m really not counting on it.
Tier Four - How aren’t they all top ten?
Five players basically tied at eighth, plus two just slightly behind.
8: Gavin Brindley
The firecracker that just keeps getting better, Gavin Brindley has now shred every argument against his upside apart.
He passes the size/skating threshold with ease, with pivots and cuts looking like a dance as Brindley bobs, weaves, spins and shakes off pressure. He has no issue with board engagements as he has a low center of gravity and body positioning that leverages said gravitational advantage. His motor is running constantly, but not in the way that sometimes scares you off because he only has one gear. He doesn't overskate pockets of ice, he doesn't forgo the right play to recklessly chase the puck and he clearly appreciates the value of changing pace and direction when attacking at high speeds. He loves to use defenders' momentum against themselves and I have a particular affinity for those types of players. Pace changes do a lot for players like this in the NHL.
His offensive game has done nothing but improve all year. At the start of the year it was possible to view him solely as a smart, energetic and shifty winger who would be an underrated nuisance for his size. Brindley challenged that convention by diversifying his offense and showing new dimensions with every month that passed in 2022. Then, the WJC came around and Brindley ended the hesitation by fully showcasing what his multifaceted offensive dimensionality can offer, earning him consistent promotions throughout the USA lineup. He’s taken this momentum back to the NCAA as he is utterly dominating in a first line role, becoming the ultimate compliment to Adam Fantilli. He has taken a step forward in his offensive manipulation in the cycle without losing his ability to escape pressure, he's shown that he can be quite the puck mover and/or facilitator off the rush and his forechecking game looks just as great as ever. He is a fantastic puck mover in transition that frequently leverages whatever space he’s given into a controlled entry through the middle, either by pass, reception or carry. If that’s not possible, then he secures the smart play unless a reward that vastly outweighs the risk exists somewhere. He’s also extremely intelligent in his own zone with habits that are about as projectable from a defensive winger as you can find. Of course, this part is the most susceptible to his size affecting him against NHLers.
He's a Michigan player as well, which really does mean something. They pick their players for a reason and do a pretty damn good job developing them for NHL roles. Brindley is to be one of their best over the next few years and I expect to see his game steadily improve during his tenure there, ending with a surprisingly quick adaptation to the NHL.
Why #8: Out of all the non-Benson/Michkov small wingers I have ranked high, Brindley is currently the easiest to project to the NHL. Yes, that includes Cristall. His offensive stint as of late is bordering on criminal. As insane as Fantilli’s scoring is, Brindley is a big contribution to that and he shouldn’t be underrated as such just because he plays alongside the top guy. His motor, effort, mobility and skill blend is about as high-end as you can find with the remaining names (although some have arguments) and he’s doing incredible things against NCAA competition as a late 2004 born player. He simply has dat dawg in him.
9: Will Smith
What a fascinating player.
Will Smith at his best, assuming that's the player that ultimately comes through in the NHL, carries a tremendous argument for a top five pick. A ridiculously high-end blend of handling, agility, vision and audacity. Him ascending as high as six or seven by year’s end would not surprise me as he certainly has earned such consideration, I just haven’t fully figured this puzzle out yet.
Ninth should indicate that I'm not entirely sold that the best is going to come through in the NHL. The creativity he has to chain solutions together, manufacturing high danger chances for himself and others out of literally nothing may be the same bane that ends up limiting him in the show. It all comes down to what aspects you believe will project.
There are real inefficiencies towards his decision making, similar to second-half DY Cooley but without the absurd first half to provide reassurance that a more stable player exists beneath all the what-the-hell-did-he-just-try's. Smith is fun personified, and really has a chance to be a first line 70 point winger down the line, but there is a bit of recklessness towards how he plays with the puck. Almost as if he thinks people will be more hesitant towards him because he's him. This could be as simple as a "wow, these guys are the best players in the world, can't leave the puck unprotected anymore" once he makes it to the NHL, or it could turn out to be an issue because the best moments came from capitalizing on people who are a bit more scared to challenge him than they ought to be. Exposing the puck at the frequency that he does so is a habit that’s just too hard to evaluate from afar without talking to the player and understanding their mentality. He could easily be in the top five if he nailed an interview.
It's really not good practice to hold onto any individual play in your head, but a piece of the puzzle that is Will Smith clicked when I saw him decide to just obliterate a puck right out of the air for a goal at the Biosteel game. It was so dumb and I mean that in the best way, I audibly laughed out loud when I saw it. There are, what, maybe five players this year with the skill, shot and sheer brain size required to make that play? It's never really going to be a useful component to his game, it's more so just a reflection as to how Smith is able to come up with one-of-a-kind solutions to problems that just blow your mind.
Two sore spots that will forever piss me off are being low on Zegras (9th in 2019), back when I was still in the “figuring scouting out” stage, and being lower on Johnson (8th in 2021), due to over focusing on some question marks with his feet. Realistically, they were only off by a few spots and I still can make arguments for the bulk of the players ahead of them that I stand by, but these are my types of players so being low does really annoy me. Smith carries that same level of creativity and with him currently being 9th here as well, I’m starting to wonder if I have a blindspot to these types of players in their DY when it comes to projecting them. Now that I’m aware of the possible bias at play, I’ll be paying attention to it.
Why #9: I just can’t pass on this insanity at this point. Brindley edges him out ever so slightly because whatever slight drop in OZ performance (it’s starting to become arguable that there may not be a drop) is compensated for Gavin being so much more complete outside of the OZ. As for the rest of the tier, they have really strong “I can’t pass up on this at 9” arguments themselves but someone has to go nine so why not pick the literal wizard.
10: Jayden Perron
There was a time there where Jayden Perron was easily looking like the most underrated player in the draft. That time seems to have passed for the most part as he’s really shot up public lists, but McKenzie’s list suggests the NHL doesn’t share the same level of enthusiasm.
His raw scoring numbers, combined with his lackluster size and the fact that he doesn’t drop your jaw at first stride seems like a fair enough reason for that assessment. I’d wager it changes by year's end in the eyes of some NHL scouts but ultimately, the size/mobility combo may not pass their necessary threshold and I understand that. Again, it’s easy for me to be higher on the player when the risk of my livelihood isn’t baked into selecting him in the first round, let alone the top ten.
Nevertheless, this is one of the draft’s best players. Period. Personally, I think his skating is enough to pass the threshold by a fair bit because what he lacks in top speed is made up for in lateral agility, and that compliments his game far more than zoom-zooming up the ice would. Perron is a masterful manipulator, one of the very best at combining skill-moves and directional changes in-motion while being aware of incoming pressure, while also considering where the next wave of pressure will be coming from and baking that into the solution as well. It’s so methodical and it allows Perron to do what is considered an impossibility by many — thrive as a smaller player in offensive middle-ice without being physically overwhelmed. This is something that people really liked about Nazar, but I think Perron might actually be even better with it. He is one of the most center-focused wingers of the draft and his intelligence, anticipation, skill, agility and manipulation all support this. Some may say that they like Nazar’s habits better but I’m not sure I agree. The other argument in Nazar’s favour is his tools are slightly better.. and I hate to do this.. but:
His partner in crime this year is Macklin Celebrini, who is going to be a freak of nature next year due to how sophisticated he is. I know it’s easy to discredit what Perron is doing because of Celebrini but I can’t help but feel that’s a skewed perspective. It takes two to be a formidable duo — Perron’s ability to play alongside someone who is so easy to project into a star NHL role is because he can think the game on the same wavelength. He does have some extended OZ carries that are a bit frustrating at times, but he also has an abundance of plays that achieve so much with just a few touches of the puck due to the pace and purpose he plays with. You can argue that the tools may prevent him from forming the same style of chemistry with another NHL star, but since I’m on the “tools are good enough and can/will get better” side of things, I just think he’ll be awesome. He and Celebrini are one of the most fun duo’s in recent memory.
Add in the fact that he’s really, really good in transition while also being really, really good at escaping the perimeter without physical contact and the picture becomes clearer. Perron possesses a top-tier brain in this class. His off-puck play is some of the best there is, his on-puck decision making boasts some of the most high-end solutions we’ve seen this year and the core nature of his game has been built around mitigating all of the weaknesses he’s likely to face as a smaller player. The easiest way to see it all in action is to watch a game and focus solely on how often his OZ off-puck positioning leads to him getting the puck in space and/or in-motion, and how his next few actions are likely to result in a player who is multiple lanes away gets the puck with space and forces a defensive shift. Then see how seamlessly he finds space as they shift while remaining an outlet. It’s not there every game but that’s not a trait you just fluke into having. Next level stuff.
He’s also surprisingly good at reading the game defensively!
Why #10: I can argue Perron as high as eight right now. He, like Brindley and Smith, still have the potential to finish the year ranked in a higher tier, even if their numerical position doesn’t change. I had him as high as sixth at some point and am just as optimistic as I was then. It’s just a stupidly absurd draft with this many genuinely elite talents. Maybe it’s the luxury of being an online nerd instead of actually working in the league, but this is the epitome of the type of player I am willing to take a risk on earlier. I think there are so many line combinations that would benefit from a player like Perron. Considering the defenders are great, but not first pairing locks, I’d take Jayden. Lots of middle-six safety if he has to change his on-ice identity a bit, while still keeping that top six, potentially first-line upside. I don’t see a situation where he shouldn’t be capable of playing in the league in some capacity, providing a floor I think a lot of others will disagree with. Whether he will or not, I don’t know. He’s got a lot of biases to fight against once he’s ready to play in the show. He’s likely to go in the second round, and unless Cristall or someone unexpectedly falls there, I’d bet Perron to be the Stankoven-type selection of the 2023 NHL Draft.
11: Axel Sandin-Pellikka
By the thinnest of margins, this dynamic Swede takes the top spot for defenders. At this point in time, it's a competition between two names only and I'm 50.01% sure this isn't changing come June.. I think?
There is no better offensive rearguard, it’s just that simple. Sandin-Pellikka projects so cleanly to a top four role. The standout trait is the passing game he has which checks off every box: accuracy, stability (easier for receivers to control), volume, efficiency, complexity of passes, everything. Obviously, anyone who has seen ASP knows that the passing is complemented by elite four-way mobility, exceptional carrying skills, advanced space recognition and a strong sense of timing for activations both in transition and in the OZ.
This is a draft that is weak on defenders. At this point in time, ASP is one of four defenders that I believe checks all of the boxes in the above paragraph. Add in a competent defensive game and that number drops to two. Ask them to make these attacks highly impactful in a professional setting and we’re down to one, Axel Sandin-Pellikka.
I think ASP’s path to a first pairing defender is mostly determined by how well he can leverage the passing/carrying aspect of his game transitionally. Shocker, I know. What I mean in this specific case is that ASP is the only defender whose passing game is so revered that I can see the opposition starting to over-rotate to cut off passing lanes when ASP has the puck compared to his teammates. Over-rotating means holes left behind, and if there isn’t an available pass then there absolutely will be a carry. Carrying into space forces another rotation, then comes the pass and yeah, you get the idea. It's a theory that doesn’t function as neatly as it reads in a game setting because hockey is nothing but a game of complete chaos.. but still. Other defenders need to spend a while to learn how to pass and/or carry as well as ASP does, which isn’t an easy task, while ASP doesn’t need to spend any time adding either to his game. They’re already in their pro-ready form. This means blending them together, layering one on top of the other and learning how to leverage that level of deception so the opposition can be manipulated at will can be the primary focus of his development time.
One potential caveat in ASP’s game can be escaping pressure upon DZ retrievals. I don’t think this is a weakness by any means, but a common trend in recent European transitional defenders that fail to hit their mark in the NHL is a low panic threshold upon moving to the smaller ice, particularly with recovering loose pucks. There is a tactical meta difference in NA, where we use D-to-D passes much less due to higher pace, more efficient forechecking and less space to work with. It’s something that a lot of defenders learn in Junior as an effective panic move that maintains possession while escaping pressure on larger ice, which mostly just turns into a turnover or a loose puck at best on smaller ice. There just isn’t the time and space to use it as a panic move here, it almost always has to be a conscious read from the defender. His elite transitional game is built around a chain of events that frequently starts with DZ retrievals, so that becoming a limitation can dampen everything else. As I said before, I’m convinced that this part isn’t a concern as I think ASP’s sense for incoming pressure exceeds that of most EU defenders to be selected in the last few drafts, but.. yeah, probably worth a mention.
Why 11: It feels really weird not having ASP in my top ten. That 8-12 group is so close that everyone of them could be in a different spot tomorrow and I'd be okay with it. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how to make 12 things fit in 10 spots so until then, two have to be left out. I'll defer to the forwards in this case by such a thin margin that I don't even want to explain it as doing so might set off a chain reaction of me re-writing all five of these.
12: Dmitri Simashev
I think my two biggest weaknesses as a talent evaluators are:
Projecting players that develop in Russia to the NHL because of the vast differences within their tactical structures.. or lack thereof.
Evaluating larger, toolsy, defense-first rearguards and, typically, undervaluing them for more offensive styled players. It's hard to bank on development when you don’t actually know what the development plan for a player is.
I believe it's very easy to fall into a trap where you start believing development can fix a lot of issues in players with a lot of imperfections. There are players who are already very good at the time of the draft who can become notably better with the same development time. The whole "developmental runway" concept absolutely exists with some players and in those cases, there is a lot of value in selecting them. I also think that line of thinking can be overused, causing a susceptibility to pass on objectively good players who are easy to project and still can get better themselves because of the idea of what someone else can be.
I also believe that there is tremendous value to be found in the few that are already good and have a massive amount of developmental runway. These are players I've typically undervalued in the past as I personally overcorrected being lower on these types of players, leaving myself to be just as susceptible to passing on enormous potential in order to take someone with less room for growth than I thought. It's a lesson that's come back to bite me a handful of times, almost always with defenders. That's why Dmitri Simashev is putting a stop to that this year. The frame of a leviathan with the agility of an.. agile leviathan? Whatever. Simashev is just a sight to behold every time he's on the ice in the KHL.
The offense? Started off relatively non-existent, at least at the KHL level, but the tools were there from day one — puck control, vision, full control of his reach, etc. The MHL scoring numbers don’t represent a player that is a remarkable attacker, but you can see how the above tools can really start being chained together. When he decides to do stuff, especially at the MHL, the first thought you get is “how don’t you have sixty thousand points yet”, but then you get that answer because he just stops trying to do stuff. It’s really starting to feel like he’s just a simple “you know, you can just attack here and literally no one can stop you” away from attacking in the OZ more frequently and, you know, not being stopped!
The defense? Well that might legitimately be the best of any prospect I've seen against pro competition in the last few years. He's so difficult to get by. I've seen plays where he's angled an attacker towards the boards with his stick, taking up an exorbitant amount of space with both body and reach, denying any chance of a centering pass. Even if the puck carrier takes his time, changes his direction repeatedly and pulls out every trick he can to get Simashev's momentum to work against him.. it usually still fails. That's insane for a draft eligible in the KHL. If they are foolish enough to try and draw Simashev to the boards so that they can pass through to the space behind him, well, good luck. They're likely to just go splat, ending up as a mosquito on a windshield. Dmitri mimics footwork like a Ditto.
Why #12: What keeps him behind ASP is that his DZ -> NZ -> OZ progression chain isn’t as refined, hence the lower production in even the MHL. However, watching him clearly shows that he can be a monster in every individual part of the chain. The flashes of it all coming together are very, very clearly there and it’s terrifying. The safety of a 6’6 defense first shutdown guy with the agility to match high-end NHLers provides a safety not found with a Russian defender in a very long time, and the ceiling is about as high as the sky. Like I said, I think ASP has a 50.01% chance of ending as my number one defender but the way Simashev has trended up this season makes me think he may just claim that spot after all. There’s just more questions compared to ASP, making me hesitate to pass on what Sandin-Pellikka has to offer. Simashev could skyrocket to like.. six or seven.
13: Riley Heidt
Each individual aspect of Riley Heidt’s game is elite.
He’s a terrific shooter who is great at finding space away from the puck. He’s a fantastic perimeter player who’s good at gaining middle-ice by threatening a centering pass and carrying it into newly created space or vice versa. He’s highly capable at playing in middle-ice and anticipates incoming pressure with brilliance. He’s great defensively in terms of anticipating lanes and getting into them, and he’s great at leveraging that into defensive exits. He has excellent habits in transition both on and off the puck. He is a true triple-threat player that can threaten any of the two options to make space for the third.
He also does almost all of these things in isolation and seldom puts them all together with the frequency that you’d hope for. Aaaaaaaaaand he can also sometimes float.. a lot.
For me, the writeup is small because the reasoning he’s high is simple. Everything written above are all aspects of Heidt's game. He can be exceptionally intelligent across many different facets within the game. There is no reason that I can really think of that leads me to believe these strengths won’t slowly integrate themselves more and more over time, especially when Heidt goes up a level in play and realizes that a higher compete level is going to be mandatory. It’s not even like he has one of the fabled “compete issues” that you hear about with prospects, it’s more like there are moments where I’m going “RILEY, MOVE YOUR ASS AND YOU CAN MAKE A PLAY THERE”. I’m pretty sure these moments are the largest problem leading to everything being disconnected in his game. Is that even a compete issue? I don’t know, it’s more likely to be a “I’m better than everyone already” type of situation. Regardless, I’m pretty confident that a simple “RILEY, MOVE YOUR ASS” from an NHL/AHL coach will start pulling everything together.
Why #13: Well, he’s one of like.. fourteen players all capable of top ten status. He just carries a bit more risk because he doesn’t play as consistently well and/or utilize his strengths as some of the other top ten players. There is a world that exists where this doesn’t change and Heidt ends up as a player with only a few strengths that flashes more potential than he ends up having. I personally don’t believe that’s likely unless Riley truly doesn’t want to be an elite hockey player, and I think it’s a bit absurd to suggest that about anyone who has worked this hard to be this good at something. He’s similar to Simashev — all the tools in isolation just need to be combined; however, he’s behind Simashev because he’s not a freak of nature 6’6 defender shutting down high-level pro’s in one of the world’s best leagues. I don’t consider Heidt a part of the five-man tie for eighth as he is fractionally behind them, but he’s the same quality of player.
14: Ryan Leonard
I heavily slept on Ryan Leonard’s game earlier in the year. I viewed him as a smaller power-forward with some nice skill, occasionally nice vision and a helluva shot before moving on. He was somewhere in the 20’s.
Then I revisited him and found a monster of a smaller power-forward with a lot of skill, really nice vision and also a helluva shot. Now he’s 14th.
Leonard is a perfect encapsulation of what a smaller player needs to play a powerful game in the modern NHL. It can no longer be about brute strength forcing plays through contact. Instead, it’s a lethal open-ice player who forces defenders to respect their abilities to drive play and remove their space, basically handing players like Leonard a free chance to work their momentum against them right before driving right through them, handling the puck with surprising levels of efficiency that borders on dazzling. I wasn’t expecting to use such grand verbiage for mid-first level players but a) this draft is unreal, and b) his highlights are seriously some of the best in the draft. Dazzling seems fitting.
It’s the fact that Ryan Leonard has such a competent game in open-ice, one that isn’t reliant on sheer power to burst through the seams of a defensive structure in order to provide off-puck shooting outlets for linemates or thread a pass a fraction of an inch behind the ankles of a defender. It’s what makes the moments where he uses that smaller frame against defenders so impactful. You just can’t think “small man is small”, buckle down and throw him to the floor because he will attack you in all the non-power related ways. The second you commit to those plays, Leonard can get you physically and play off your attempt to make contact because your momentum is often working against you.
Why #14: I wouldn’t say that Ryan Leonard is a finished product developmentally, but I do think he has less room to grow relative to the names ahead. The tools can improve a bit, the way everything blends together can become more efficient, but I don’t think Leonard has too much to grow and/or add onto his existing game. His ceiling is basically tied to how deceptive he can be as an open-ice attacker, and then how efficient he can be with threatening that deception to make his slot-drives easier. He’s already really good at this and I don’t see too much room for improvement and that’s okay! It makes him a likely candidate for the second line in the NHL and is still worthy of top ten consideration even if I don’t have him there myself. He can rise due to the safety and projectability in his game while still being an unbelievable player.
Tier Five - They’re still really good somehow
Don’t trade away your first rounders.
15: Luca Cagnoni
Cagnoni is a really, really weird player to get a projection on. The best parts of his game scream projectable top four puck mover, the worst parts scream that his coach will literally scream at him and play him very little. He’s a machine that escapes pressure most of the time and finds really good plays to make out of those escapes.. until he doesn’t because he doesn't have the explosiveness to escape fast moving players with reach who know he prefers to escape laterally against their momentum. They just angle him off and wrap the stick around, and Cagnoni has already committed to this play so it turns into a bit of an issue.
He’s an unbelievable passer with simply the best passes I’ve seen from any non-ASP defender this year (and the best passes can honestly be argued alongside his) but he can also go 0/7 on passes to start the game due to rushing decisions under pressure. Sometimes it’s not even a pressure thing and he’s just playing kinda poorly, but it’s not something I see as a long term concern given the high quality play he can display. He’s likely the most sophisticated non-ASP puck carrier in the draft when it all comes together (he may actually rival ASP as an equal here), but the DZ -> Transition tendencies that make this sophistication a reality aren’t guaranteed to be projectable. If there are more bumps in the road then I anticipate then he may really struggle to earn the coaching trust he needs to play his game and if you take that identity away from him, well, what is he?
I think his improvement mostly stems from improving what is already arguably his best traits — poise and anticipation. Cagnoni is really good at recognizing when he can open up his little bag of tricks but he’s not perfect with it. He will elect to pass on easier plays to bait in the big 6’3 forechecker who can maul him if he makes a mistake. He will sometimes escape because the forechecker isn’t mistake-free himself or because he executed his play within the thin margin of success he has being a 5’10 defender, but he’s not perfect with this and he basically has to be for it to be projectable. Like I said earlier, Cagnoni loves to weaponize your momentum against you as he escapes laterally, which is a really good skill to build a game around as it can lead to an abundance of space. He’s also not Quinn Hughes with his mobility, and the projectability concern lies in there.
This makes 15th seem a little bold. It is, especially considering that there doesn’t appear to be too many areas of improvement to gain that little extra separation, whether it’s physical endurance or quicker feet. But what do we say about that?
Part of what I think will work in Luca’s favour is just electing for the simple pass/play more often than not. He’s earned this ranking because of how he weaponizes gravity but, ironically enough, he needs to defer away from gravitational escapes if he wants that to remain a weapon against better players. It can’t be predictable because he doesn’t have the speed, reach or sheer “f-u” puckhandling to punish those who deny his spin escapes. The speed and skill can get a little better but not enough to single-handedly overcome that this will be an issue against NHLers as well. He has to use the lateral escape and making that move more efficient means using it less. Fortunately, when it’s going well, he escapes pressure and pulls off some of the most nutty passes with the relaxation of somebody reading a book by a campfire. There is such poise here, so much more than you typically see from transitional specialists in the CHL, and it’s really what makes me believe you can work with him on mastering when to make the loud plays and when to make the quiet ones.
He activates brilliantly in the offensive zone as a shooter or a passer and he capitalizes on every inch of middle-ice left by the opposition. His manipulation with the puck to beat a single defender is fantastic, but he is also really good at recognizing when another teammate is in position to manipulate the defensive structure and ensures to get him the puck with optimal conditions. What does that word vomit mean? Well, an easy example is that Cagnoni will get the puck on the OZ blue line, arc towards the middle until he’s out of space and then see who is in the best position to take advantage of the shift he just caused — often a player on the perimeter. He passes to them, the defense shifts again and if that player is smart enough then he recognizes that the shift Cagnoni made means there’s a dangerous slot pass somewhere. Cagnoni didn’t make it happen, but he made it possible for someone else and that’s really underrated. That’s one of the hallmark differences between pro and junior hockey — trusting your linemates to make the right play that you give them. It causes a positive feedback loop where your trust is rewarded, giving you confidence to follow up plays without hesitation because you know your teammates see you. Junior players won’t always capitalize on those chances like a pro will. That’s the benefit of playing for a team like Portland, they’re one of the best junior organizations in the world at instilling projectable, pro habits into their players without limiting what makes them so good at this level.
Why #15: This is a bit more of a risky pick, and I think it’s entirely possible that his positioning here is roughly as high as it can reasonably be this year. It’s hard to see him surpassing the bulk of the names ahead of him, and it’s not too difficult to see arguments forming for players behind him to pass him. I dropped him a tier for this reason, as he was the lowest player in the previous tier up until very recently. While he’s kept his numerical position, he’s slowly losing his argument against such elite players. It’s just a really good draft. He’s undeniably one of my favourites regardless of his final position.
16: Mikhail Gulyayev
I don’t have a whole lot to say about Gulyayev right now because no one in this writeup mystifies me more than this rocketship of a defender does.
The obvious is obvious: he’s probably the best skating defender, at least in a straight-line, and the amount of space he can cover in a few strides is legitimately capable of playing on the first pairing in the NHL. Players get better at skating after the draft all the time but not to this extent. You want this mobility, you draft it. Simple as that.
Since modern hockey is about controlling space, you can imagine that this tool has led to some sequences you can only describe as game-breaking, especially in the MHL. He doesn’t struggle with control when he takes off and he can really surprise attackers with how quickly he can take their space away from them.
That’s a really, really good thing because Gulyayev is significantly farther behind the other defenders in terms of defensive anticipation. Or defensive reads against a cycle. Or reading options/pressure when going for a DZ retrieval. Or… yeah, it just keeps going. Gulyayev is really far behind defensively compared to almost every first-round defender in the last few years. Part of it is likely because he’s just never needed to know it, which isn’t surprising considering U16 Russian hockey was not equipped for a player that moves like this and, as such, he never needed it to be a massive net-positive out there.
But now he does, and I am just not really sure how likely it is to happen. He’s gotten better throughout the year for sure, but it’s still a long way from being playable in the NHL. He circumvents this issue with some of the best transitional upside, especially with DZ breakouts, and there are numerous games this year where he shows he can make up for inferior DZ play with insane efficiency the second he gets the puck. To benefit him further, there have been plays where he has misread the ice and left valuable space behind but he was so goddamn fast that he still covered the ground and got a defensive stop. Would that happen in the NHL? I don’t know, the margin for error is significantly smaller. The question is just how much can he catch up so that an NHL coach doesn’t lose his mind watching Gulyayev miss basic rotations, as well as how fast he can realize he’s mispositioned and make up for that error. Today, it’s impossible to picture him in his current state defending an extended cycle against the first line of any team, especially in the playoffs. Matthews and Marner would eat him alive, perhaps finally winning their first series since the medieval times.
Why #16: It’s a stupid paradox. I can’t leave the skating on the board for any of the names after, but I also can’t take a player that feels so far away from understanding NHL hockey above the names that are easily more projectable coming up. Right now, I’m optimistic, but if there isn’t more evidence to increase my optimism then he will trend down. Just staying at this level isn’t enough by year’s end.
17: Quentin Musty
The winner of the most improved player over the course of the season goes to: well, guess who. Quentin Musty.
I cannot believe the player I see today is the same player I saw at the Hlinka camps, Hlinka tournament and the initial stint of the OHL season. Musty’s blend of tools (skill, physicality, shot, passing, mobility) and creative problem solving painted the picture of a future top six NHLer on paper, but the way everything came together was exceptionally frustrating to watch. If you asked me earlier in the season, I’d have said Musty was almost the textbook example of why simply breaking players down into individual grades can leave you with an imperfect read on who that player actually is.
Fortunately, none of it matters anymore because he actually is as good as those individual grades would leave you to believe! No longer does Musty drive towards three players and try some behind-the-back nutmeg centering pass that gets deflected away. Now he only uses tricks like that when they feel like legitimate options for a play, demonstrating a major improvement in his risk/reward processing. He’s electing to focus on handling individual problems one at a time and using the solutions to these problems to connect plays with linemates. Even when he’s being a bit more creative, he’s still chaining the solutions together to find a ton of space for either himself or his teammates. It’s not “I will score this in a highlight reel fashion” or bust now. He’s willing to use his reach and physicality to protect the puck, his skill means he maintains control even through contact and his skating allows him to do all of those while pivoting away from pressure into space with his head up looking for the next attack.
Why #17: Creativity and practicality used to be at odds with each other with every Musty carry, but the way these two aspects of his game have slowly blended together throughout the year is really opening me up to the idea that the best he has to offer is actually quite projectable. There are still DZ concerns, his effort can be.. questionable at times, but for the most part this is a higher-ceiling player with a relatively safe floor. Could drop a bit due to questions about a few players after him ending positively but I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to pass the safety of a skill third-liner who offers star upside on par with a few names ahead. If I grow more confident in that projection, he can absolutely bump some of the names ahead down and move up a tier.
18: Timur Mukhanov
What a wild ride Timur Mukhanov is.
The combination of speed, puck control and buzzsaw-esque effort on a shift to shift basis is the foundation to which Mukhanov’s game is built around. His lackluster size and strength may be the reason that remarkable foundation doesn’t play in the NHL.
Eighteenth overall does say that I see him as quite the player, especially as an offensive play-driver. He’s effortless in transition as both the carrier and an off-puck supporter, he is really inside-driven as a puck carrier in the OZ and he has zero fear trying anything out there if the risk is ultimately worth the reward. The efficiency to which he converts these plays is staggering for a player scoring this little. He is easily the most unlucky player in the draft in terms of production. NHLe models will trounce on him, and maybe they’re right to due to historical precedent, but the players who often break that mold are as talented and smart as Mukhanov is.
Orrrrrrrrrrrr I still haven’t learned my lesson with the smol guys.
Either way, he’s also just one of the most entertaining players, full stop.
Why #18: The mid-first becomes the range where swinging on high-upside players and potentially missing out on the asset becomes more tolerable. This is the range where I’m starting to expect actual NHL teams to take Andrew Cristall for example because it’s more okay to take gambles. Since I already have Cristall sky-high, my equivalent gamble is Timur. You can definitely draft a player who is more likely to be in the show, but the list of more exciting swings that can find you a star that still carries a bit of safety (his absurd motor + second effort is surprisingly effective defensively and on the forecheck) is virtually non-existent — earning him this rank. That can be argued if you’re less sold on the projectability of his habits, but my appreciation is only growing with each viewing. I’m confident in his talent level.
19: Otto Stenberg
I want him to be higher, but what I want doesn't matter.
In a draft loaded with forwards possessing dynamic toolkits, Otto Stenberg still manages to stand out. He might be the best toolkit that isn’t in the top four tiers. A gifted skater who combines his top speed with brilliant handling, allowing him to maintain complete control of the puck while executing some complex maneuvers in small areas. There is a lot of potential for what Stenberg can do with these tools and it's pretty clear that he's getting comfortable using them in different ways. He has shown a wide array of solutions to unique problems in both open ice and small areas… when the conditions are right.
That's the key. Stenberg's off puck game hasn't been where I was hoping it would be for the vast majority of this year. He can get open to receive passes on the rush and he can read the cycle pretty well but it doesn't seem to be consistent from game to game. Sometimes a flashy shift, but then lots of nothing happens after. So many occasions where Otto isn't constantly routing himself towards the action and making decisive passes when he gets the puck like he should be. I don't often say players should be doing things that aren't being shown in their game unless the conversation is about adding something they need to bring their game further, but there’s an exception in this case. I say should because that's how I'd describe his game last year. My initial impression of Stenberg was built around this very aspect — always lurking in impact areas, making smaller passes that connected plays for the team and utilizing one-touch passing to create space. It made it so when it was time for an extended carry to strike himself, he looked absolutely lethal. Who’s to say if that is some biased preconception I’ve formed over the small sample size I had last year, but it’s suffice to say that I’ve been disappointed in its disappearance.
There’s a ton of reason for optimism here. It’s not like he’s legitimately bad when he does have the puck. The issue is the frequency to which he’s doing things that make an impact, not the fact that he cannot do it. Moments of what he can be have appeared in fragmentations, and they’re breathtaking; they just don’t always tend to last. This year Stenberg seems to prefer to drift into open space, receive passes and then drive the bus himself, which is actually awesome as all hell and feels like the natural progression to last year’s playstyle. It also showed that the bus doesn’t go very far if the driver is taking a 46 minute break inside of a Tim Horton’s. He is undeniably suited for a larger piece of the pie when driving play and has skills that would really fit with today’s highly skilled, mobile and tactful top six NHL units, but you also need to see this being activity showing through with assertiveness and an urgency to create at every moment they can before they get to the NHL.
What this means for his future role is something that I haven’t fully figured out yet. Obviously, I see a positive trend for him if he’s able to keep this ranking in such a talented draft and that makes sense. He is the type of player that I am looking for in the draft, so if I’m to grant anybody additional leniency over others it’d be someone like Otto Stenberg.
Fortunately, it’s looking like we’ll have a clear answer as to whether this leniency is even necessary after all with Stenberg’s recent stint in the SHL. He’s playing better here than he was at the J20 level, despite the fact that this is significantly higher level competition. More moments of impact. Lots of space being created against better athletes, confirming that his tools really are good enough to be applied in the pro’s. He’s executing the right plays to help push pace at a 5v5 macro sense, and is typically getting the timings right both on and off the puck. He certainly looks like he belongs. He can sometimes be half a second behind or something, but I don’t see it as a concern. It reminds me of Noah Östlund last year, who was not really as impactful as he should have been but you can tell he was just slightly lagging behind making his game work against pro’s. He’s looked incredible this year and I have zero hesitation that he’ll torch the SHL next year. I can absolutely see Stenberg on that path, or maybe I’m susceptible to confirmation bias in cases like this.
Why #19: Same argument as Timur, the tools are just too good. Mukhanov edges him out due to the motor and overall higher activity levels, but I think Stenberg’s blend of high level skill is just slightly better. There’s a clear history of being a high-end playdriver and I initially had Stenberg as a top ten guy in the draft. If there’s a player you draft with the hope of rediscovering an offensive spark, take the one with the stupid toolkit. If Stenberg maintains this level of play, he likely climbs. If he goes another step forward then he can really climb.
20: Gracyn Sawchyn
The Seattle Thunderbird forward was easily one of my most underrated players of the draft until recently. Not because his play didn’t impress me during my one early-season game sample that I only recently increased, but because I was told on two or three different occasions that Sawchyn is my type of player. I finally stopped putting off his viewings and yep. He’s awesome all right. It just took a bit longer to piece the details together.
Crisp OZ routes when off-puck enable Sawchyn to make an impact in every other play that’s going on. When he has the puck, you won’t find Gracyn making risky plays all too often, instead opting for the simple play that makes progress in a more subtle way. He’s all details and is another one of those players who analytics will love a lot more than his scoring totals would indicate. I love off-puck play when it’s precise and used to constantly redirect towards impactful areas, provide support options and just chain plays together. This guy is one of the best for it.
Add in a shot that I initially underrated, consistent backchecking efforts with great routing and puck pursuit, an active stick that causes chaos and knows how to capitalize on it, projectable habits when supporting a primary puck mover in transition and a bit more skill than you’d think from a player with this playstyle and yeah, Sawchyn is awesome. It all cultivated together for the Top Prospects Game where Gracyn was arguably the best player on the ice (and was kinda robbed of the award showcasing that).
Why #20: He lacks high-end dynamism, but we’re now in the range where the players who still carry that trait have a wide range of outcomes, many of them on the lower side of things. Sawchyn being better than 90% of them wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest as practically few changes to his playstyle are required to project him into the middle six of an NHL team. He can play in a variety of roles, his details can mask a lot of his linemates weaknesses and he’s also the type of player that fans and coaches will love because of the heart he carries with each shift.
21: Calum Ritchie
One of my favourite players from the Hlinka has had quite the unusual season. I was not sure if it was an unlucky sample thing on my behalf or others, but it felt like two versions of Ritchie existed this year.
The first was the one I saw in a Team Canada jersey and the one others have kept in the top 15 all year: the two-way puck protecting pivot who was extremely reliable with his passing, surprisingly deceptive in-motion and great at manipulating space by using the full length of his stick to control the puck and/or change directions on a pass.
The second was the one I saw for most of the year in a Generals jersey who flashed everything above, but was also just not carrying the same level of two-way impact I’d seen at the Hlinka. Plays got by him that he could have stopped with a bit more effort. He seemed over reliant on puck protection and short passes which seemed to indicate he was moving away from the in-motion slip passes that really added to his upside. There was just this weird aura with his game that I still struggle to put into words, almost like he was injured or had low-energy for some reason. Maybe it wasn’t lowering his actual in-game impact as I initially thought, and I was subconsciously harsher on him than I should have been because of expectations. I just don’t know. Either way, I had the whole “is Ritchie even a first rounder” conversation in my head. Don’t judge, it’s a loaded draft.
The disconnect in the two conversations threw me for a loop. I watched games from different months, expecting to see the best of Ritchie come and take over a whole game. It never really did. Then the Top Prospects Game came around and the first version of Ritchie came right back. Not take the game over level good, but really interesting. Definitely enough to remind me that the standard I had was too high, causing me to potentially undervalue what Ritchie is actually bringing to the table because “it’s not enough” or something. The in-motion plays, puck protection, NZ defense, transitional support and more — all back like it never left. So I found an older game from December to make sure I wasn’t crazy when I watched him that month before, and he was great in it! I watched a recent Generals game to double check and he was utterly fantastic!
Moral of the story is that sample sizes can still be evil even across multiple games across multiple months and this is exactly why rankings don’t come out earlier.. because he’d have been a lot lower. It’s not common (and not something I was expecting here) but that can just happen sometimes.
Why #21: The best of Calum Ritchie is easy to justify higher than 21 if I’m being honest, but to what extent I’m not sure. I have him here now because while the fear that he’s not what I initially thought is entirely gone, I’m still not entirely sure what you develop him into in the NHL. All of Calum’s strengths project so easily to pro hockey so he’ll definitely play in a relatively impactful role. Whether that is 3C or low-end 2C is yet to be determined (I lean towards 3C myself) but if the interest past the fourth tier is to find a guaranteed NHL player then Ritchie can go somewhere between 15-18 by year’s end. Ritchie is also one of the best examples of a player who can grow into something magnificent if he can get some explosivity added. I’m not sure he’s the most viable candidate for a significant skating improvement, at least when it comes to power, but if he did then it would unlock some unbelievable offensive upside. Benefiting every aspect of his game in the small area but making him a true open-ice playdriver. If he takes the skating up a tier, which is too hard to predict as of now, he can be a damn valuable top six center. This is mostly a moot point because we’re now entering “if Ritchie can improve skating then why can’t x improve y” territory which opens up a ton of logical exploits, but Ritchie is one of the best examples of a player that can randomly surprise everyone by taking an unprecedented leap in one trait and having everything else be amplified massively by it. Not my bet, and I don’t think I’ll consider it in my rankings at any point, but who says it’s impossible?
22: Alex Ciernik
In the midst of a season full of flashes, ups, downs and creativity, Alex Ciernik is starting to stabilize himself as a first round staple with consistently great play now that he’s been loaned to a new team in HockeyAllsvensken.
In nine games, Ciernik has scored in four of them — boasting a multi-point game in two, for a total of six in nine games since the loan started. That production looked better just a bit ago when it was just six points in six games, but the raw production itself isn’t what I needed to solidify my read on Ciernik. Instead, it was just seeing him regain his form as a fast, pacey winger with the tenacity required to get creative if he’s given the space for it, while maintaining the simplicity in hockey if necessary. It leads to great results in the NZ and DZ as well. It mostly feels projectable due to the speed that he plays with, which I think establishes a floor as a two-way winger in your bottom six if he’s given time to develop.
Ciernik can really move. He has the type of mobility that made me think more people would be praising his play at this point in the year. He’s not just a full-speed engine that only knows one pace, as Ciernik has quite a few nice plays that have come from him flying into the zone only to change his pace, opening a new lane for a pass/carry right into the slot. Add in defensive competency and great transitional habits and Ciernik really is a player that’s trending into this range, likely to hold a spot somewhere in the 20’s for the year. If it turns out to be just another small sample and his play slips a bit, then I can see that trending down a bit more — especially considering the quality of players still lurking behind him.
Why #22: The third line is likely where Ciernik ends up playing in the NHL. It’s a testament to the pace and skill required to be a third liner in the new-age NHL that Ciernik will be entering in a few years. You could argue that I should be still looking for more upside considering my general philosophy, but I think finding players who are genuinely fantastic third liners competing for a cup is pretty good value in this range. If the other linemates are both speedy and defensively responsible then I think the trio can form a third line that fans would be thrilled to have due to the pace and possession they can instill on a game. What makes Ciernik one of the more desirable third line players is that his tools actually do spell out a clear path to upside, as becoming a top six forward isn’t completely out of the question. It’s not overly likely, but the amount of players likely to become a top six forward are starting to really carry risks that Ciernik doesn’t have (at least, compared to them).
23: David Reinbacher
Yeah, I don’t know what to really say here. It’s kinda low!
I like David Reinbacher a lot more than I initially did, and this ranking is more of a reflection of my philosophy in action. I’ve seen a few games this year where he’s impressed me quite a bit in the DZ with angling opponents off, physically pinning attackers to the boards before they reach dangerous space and some surprisingly skillful exit passes off of DZ retrievals. I had a concern earlier in the year that he didn’t really carry a lot of skill when handling pressure for DZ retrievals but that turned out to be a sample thing, making me more willing to take Reinbacher in the first round. Ask me a while ago and I’d say I’d prefer Jakub Dvorak (who is really underrated)!
He shoots really well, plays a highly projectable DZ game and can support transitions well enough. He can sometimes activate in the OZ and I’ve seen a lot of praise for his timing when doing so, but I’m not entirely sure I agree to the extent where that timing indicates an abundance of potential. It does indicate that he can assist with OZ possession in a top four role instead of hammering shots from the point, and he also happens to have a monster of a shot so stepping up to use it does make David a legitimately badass shooting threat. I just don’t know about the correlation between shooting ability and offensive upside from a defender, as I think it’s significantly more important to be able to manufacture space and manipulate lanes open. The shooting is needed in a higher role, so it’s a bonus regardless.
From what I’ve gathered, the most commonly referred to moments this year where the upside is overly clear are the WJC games against the lower quality teams like Latvia. I thought he was excellent in those games myself, but I’m not really surprised that he found such success against those players when he suits up for the Swiss league for club play. Without sounding disrespectful, little is needed to actually manipulate those players successfully. Those games show that he knows the value of doing it, but that was never really in question for me. Little flashes of that success show up here and there in the NL, but even then, I don’t think those flashes paint the picture of a Moritz Seider in waiting. That’s Dmitri Simashev as far as I’m concerned.
In my eyes, Reinbacher is the textbook example of the difference between his theoretical ceiling and practical ceiling. Theoretically, Reinbacher can become a first pairing defender because the tools are good now, can get much better and there are underlying habits in his game that can turn him into an efficient activator in the NHL’s offensive zone alongside star, top six forwards. He absolutely can be a large piece of the pie in transition, both on and off the puck. His defensive game already projects really well. If it all comes together, then Reinbacher’s potential is as high as any defender’s.. if it all comes together. It’s the if part that bugs me. There are a lot of additions that all need to come together and fully complement the existing strengths in his game. The ratio of players that this is applicable towards vs. the players that actually take this leap is not in his favour, and goes more towards the “unprecedented leap” I mentioned with Ritchie. Practically, things going well for Reinbacher likely means improving the strengths that already work: better forward passing, bettering his OZ activation to secure possession on loose pucks/support forwards, an efficient first pass and angling off NHL athletes towards the perimeter. That’s still really good!
Why #23: I think he’s likely to make the NHL as a toolsy defender that can play within the flow of the game and not really cost you much, but I’d rather my top forwards be playing with defenders who can offer more in transition and in the OZ as creators so I’d prefer him as a #4 alongside someone who matches that description a bit better. He’s a bit like Kaiden Guhle, who is by far and away one of the best examples of me undervaluing what a prospect brings to the table in lieu of chasing upside, so I’ve learned not to let Reinbacher drop too far for audacious swings. Still, it’s a stupidly good draft and the few ahead either carry similar safety in their pick while flashing a bit more upside, or just straight up carry enough upside that I’m okay passing on a #4/5 defender. I plan on putting his play under a microscope soon and look for patterns/trends that indicate more offensive/transitional growth than I’m currently thinking exists.
24: Oscar Fisker Mølgaard
Smart, cerebral, highly effective.. this is going to start sounding repetitive with the next group of players.
At the same time, that’s what a good draft tends to have in store for you in the late first. We’ve been bestowed with a wide variety of impactful, third-line quality players for scouts to take. Who you actually take mostly comes down to what you are specifically looking for. This group is mostly sophisticated players with details that ideally function in pro hockey, but don’t really have the tools to indicate upside beyond the middle-six of an NHL lineup. That’s okay because the upside swings left are starting to get really risky, so you’re exchanging upside for the security of a player who will still definitely be above replacement.
OFM might be the best example of this. He’s already so good in the SHL and it all comes down to the same details mentioned for players like Sawchyn and Ritchie — routing, offering support options, assisting in transition, good risk/reward assessments, enough tools to be projectable to the NHL in their current form, etc. He’s managed to do something that they haven’t, which is make these subtle nuances work in a professional setting.
Why #24: I don’t think any of the players behind guarantee the level of impact that OFM is bringing to the table. I think OFM’s cerebral habits offer more line flexibility with how you would want to fill out your middle six compared to Dvorský or Danielson. At the same time, I think Ciernik beats OFM out in the tools conversation, while Sawchyn and Ritchie flash more upside; however, that upside might only flash because they aren’t playing pro. I don’t see a lot of room for improvement with his tools, and as of now I’m still on the fence on if getting a bit faster or adding a few new in-motion puck tricks really unlock something new for OFM, or if it just helps improve what he’s already good at. Although..
25: Dalibor Dvorský
I like Dalibor, but I do not see where a lot of the hype comes from in terms of taking him in the top ten. It can work since you get a guaranteed NHL player, and I can kinda see the upside case a little bit, but it's an opportunity cost thing. What are you leaving on the table?
Dvorský slows the game down too much when he tries to make a play and doesn't seem to execute his strengths with pace. It works okay on larger ice surfaces, but I really don't know how it's going to work against NHLers on smaller ice. You can see at this level that Dvorský isn't exiting one-on-one’s in-stride with a lot of space, he’s still under pressure and physically holding them off. Slowing the game down is a really valuable thing, but only as a byproduct when you can also threaten a high pace of play as well, AKA acceleration. Unless he's a Draisaitl-esque offensive player, which Dvorský isn't, it's concerning.
Offensively, Dvorský's off puck game is all sorts of confusing. At times he manages to be in the right spot at the right time and immediately makes the right play with no hesitation. But there's a lot of movement from Dvorský away from the puck where I just don't see him getting open. He's asking for the puck when he's under heavy pressure. Good players just aren't going to pass to Dvorský in these circumstances because the risk/reward isn't worth it, even if he can manufacture quite the reward in specific conditions.
If he gets the puck in space, Dvorský's skill can be used for some pretty complex solutions which is where the capacity for high-end playmaking looks best. That's not particularly unique, as the majority of players are more comfortable solving problems in open space, but Dvorský is better than some of the names ahead in these conditions. My thing is I just don't know how to evaluate that if I question the projectability of his off-puck game and propensity for slowing the game down. What's it worth? How much higher is the potential reward here compared to someone more projectable?
Fortunately, Dvorský’s defensive game has started to become more desirable for me as the year goes on. This is where his off-puck game has developed the most consistency throughout the year and, fortunately for him, the physical engagements are really going to reward him in this role. I do see a projectable third line center here who can play physical, flash some skill and shoot when given space.
Why #25: End of the first round feels like a fair place to take a projectable third line center who you know will play. Brownie points if they do still carry a bit of upside. I’m not sure what that upside is entirely as I went and found his high-scoring footage from years ago and it was clear a lot came from just being more physically developed than his peers, but I do think that his ability to find space around the goal-mouth plus his shot can make him the 20 goal mark at some point. He lags behind OFM because I can still see a world where Dvorský may struggle in the NHL, where I’d be genuinely surprised if that happened with OFM.
26: Nate Danielson
I can see a world where Danielson plays a perfectly adequate 3C role on a legitimately good NHL team, which is the type of player that often gets underrated by fans due to a lack of upside. As said before, it’s not exciting to use your first round pick on a player that doesn’t scream top six.
He positions well to receive the puck without putting excess burden on the puck carrier, he’s good at identifying where open space is as the puck carrier, he doesn’t often force the puck into riskier spots in lieu of a higher reward, he recognizes the smart passing lane and will take it more often than not, he’s surprisingly slippery at times, he moves well even if there are mechanical deficiencies in his stride and he’s really good at making decisions with pace. It’s a game constructed around fundamentals, a more modern edition of the quintessential “Hockey Canada” player that fits the modern NHL.
Danielson can be a top six player one day, but it’d likely be the result of his team choosing a development path that removes his safe projectability by using him in ways that exist outside of the fundamentals he’s built his game around. I don’t believe that path is worth it unless you get him later in the draft and have enough safety in the system to risk the security that comes alongside getting a highly projectable asset that late. Even then, “later” for Danielson’s sake is likely early in the second and I’m sure there would be a handful of higher upside guys available. So if risking safety for upside is the approach.. then maybe just take Perron?
I don’t know why but I just have this weird gut feeling with Danielson that I can’t really explain. It should work in the NHL. The above description is more desirable than that of Dvorský. Yet when I think on why I believe Ritchie and Sawchyn have more upside than OFM and Dvorský, it settles into the details of their off-puck play and how they leverage their tools/motors to time their movements around the ice. The same should mean Danielson gets a bump, but I can see situations in professional hockey where Sawchyn and Ritchie actually do put their tools together and flash that upside over OFM and Dvorský, even if their games would ultimately be less effective due to the massive adjustment. With Danielson, I can really see him struggling outside of just connecting passes when he has space. Maybe I’m overthinking it, or maybe using that Ritchie/Sawchyn/Danielson in Europe thought-process isn’t the right lens to view the situation with.
Why #26: This is one of the harder players to place and is subject to more change than other names around him. Do you take the risk and try to make him more? If so, where do you take that player? If not, and you want him to be a third line center, is he a better option than Dvorský? It’s entirely possible, sometimes my gut says yes and others it’s a no. I do wonder if his sometimes passive behaviour and lack of raw speed hampers his timing windows in the show? This time, I’m tapping the sign for myself.
27: Luca Pinelli
This guy is just flying up and down my board with some of the most dramatic shifts from each viewing. I love just about everything about what he is right now and see some parts that are going to be very projectable, but I also wonder if those parts hit roadblocks when the aspects that don’t project are no longer gluing the rest of his game together.
Today, Luca Pinelli isn’t too far behind that group of smaller players I’m super high on: Cristall, Brindley, Perron and Mukhanov. He’s a high motor machine that thrives in center ice, carries his brother’s creativity, doesn’t shy from physical engagements and is surprisingly efficient with second-effort plays. He moves well off-puck. He reads transition well as he is the guy frequently gluing the pieces together for the 67’s. His one-on-one manipulation is pretty damn good — even if it is a step behind that of Cristall or Perron, it’s still better than almost all of the remaining players (and some of the ones ahead too).
The larger concern is that I think Pinelli is entirely reliant on needing skating improvements to make the game he plays equally efficient in the NHL. He is dangerously close to the size/skating threshold, and the closer you get to it the faster you drop down an NHL list. He plays quite big for his size and some strength training might even make that semi-projectable; but even then I don’t see the same level of detail/polish that the likes of Brindley, Cristall and Perron carry to circumvent their flirtation with the size/skill threshold. In theory, he can still offer an NHL team something just by being a pacey passer who moves well off-puck. Add in that Luca can find space pretty well due to his play anticipation and there is something there.
The up’s and down’s that come with Luca Pinelli’s size/skating combination have had me catapulting him up and down the list repeatedly. Yes, there are biomechanical concerns within the stride and in this case I am a bit more concerned, mostly because I think he is more reliant on a major speed boost, but..
Why #27: Because even though there is something there without mobility improvements, that something likely is just shy of first round pick status. Pinelli is like Danielson, another player flying all around my first round and even teetering into the second. I just need to see more of this puzzle that I haven’t fully figured out yet. It’s entirely possible that Pinelli moves up quite a bit by the next addition. I don’t see him dropping too much, this is already the low-end of that spectrum.
28: Eduard Šalé
So what exactly is happening here with Eduard Šalé?
The start of the season was telling the story of a possible top five pick. A strong Hlinka tournament, definitely not something that scouts have been burned for placing too much emphasis on, manufactured by smarts, skill and passing far beyond the vast majority of the competition. What helped his draft stock linger was the ease of which he was blending these traits together for consistent results once he returned to professional club play, reinforcing the cause for optimism. I know I was really high early on because it wasn’t just about one tournament or his early scoring, but the complexity of the reads and the really good plays in transition. Since the first 7-8 games of the season, everything else has told the story of a player who deserves mid-first consideration… but the bulk of that weight is being carried by his great start that has clearly tapered off. Understanding why is the difference between a lottery selection and trending down this far, potentially heading into the second round.
I was hoping the WJC would be the turning point for Šalé, getting the chance to play against less-physical competition where his skill and processing could really take over. He had some fantastic moments, but the overall shift-to-shift abilities I was hoping to see just never came to life. The season continues to progress and the best of what Šalé had to offer are starting to feel like more of a relic.
Šalé isn’t particularly fleet-of-foot, something that doesn’t pair well with OZ creation that comes from slipping into space at the right time and making something happen. It’s a smart process that clearly worked at some point in time, but also fell apart once teams started playing closer to him when he’s off-puck. Now there’s more of a distance to cover to get into that space again and you can really see it affecting Šalé as he still is playing the game like he can get there and make a play in time. It has turned Eduard into an observer, showing up late for his moments of impact and not even really getting a touch of the puck in time. This wouldn’t be so much of a concern if Šalé was still killing it when he did get the puck, but that efficiency has dropped too because teams learned quickly that pressuring him fast and taking away his options limits his ability to actually create things via manipulation. Anticipation is great if you can leverage it consistently but occasionally being able to skate into a pocket of space to create a centering pass with dazzling hands just isn’t enough to compensate for the four proceeding shifts of minimal impact/activity. This is at the Czech pro-league level, which is a commendable playing level but far behind what the NHL offers and it is concerning that there’s been so little adaptability. A big portion of it coming from the fact that Šalé’s hands aren’t really doing a whole lot when he’s in-motion either, and making plays from a glide just doesn’t really work. It’s less of a concern if additional mobility is all that’s necessary for Šalé to be a dangerous weapon every shift, but his skill really loses its stand-out punch when he’s in stride. I don’t really know what to make of that yet, so I won’t comment further.
Why #28: There’s just too much talent in this draft. Šalé being a better handler in-motion would really lead me to bet on his smarts, but that’s not particularly the case right now. It’s weird because I can see this completely biting me in the ass as Šalé might be the single best example of someone’s game being completely unlocked by a tool or two getting better. In-motion handling and some more separation from a lull? That player is worthy of being in Tier Four for sure. But do you bet on that improvement? How often do players actually overcome such issues of only looking incredible at low paces while not having the tools to threaten high paces? Even if the tools get better, how many of them implement them the way that we envision? I don’t know. I’d at least bet that Šalé lands on the side that would implement them well.
29: William Whitelaw
Hello Mr Boom or Bust.
The phenom of the Youngstown Phantoms simply possesses one of the best toolkits in the draft. He’s terrifically skilled with the puck, a ferocious shooter both at a stand-still and in-motion and can pull off some pretty nutty passes at times. He has some of the best goals scored by a draft-eligible this year and nearly every aspect of his shot, his carrying leading up to the shot and his skating projects to a high-end NHL player.
He’s also individually-focused to just enough of an extent that his projection is all over the place. This is the guy I’ve had in mind every time I’ve written something along the lines of “there are higher upside guys available but without the safety of actually playing in the league, I don’t know”.
Whitelaw not sniffing the NHL wouldn’t surprise me. Him ending up as a top ten redraft player down the line also seems plausible. The entire range of outcomes is possible here. Most of the time Whitelaw is away from the puck, you’ll see him wanting the puck. It’s a stupidly generic sentence but it’s also probably the most succinct way of explaining it — once it’s off his stick, Whitelaw will position himself accordingly to get it back with little regard for what the best play is once it’s back on his stick. He just wants it back. Once he does get it, he’s taking off like a rocket with every intention of shooting it unless there’s literally no feasible way to get a decent shot off. Once he recognizes that specific carry can’t be turned into a shot, then he’ll go through his passing options. I’d say he recognizes who to pass to and what the best options in transition surprisingly well for someone who doesn’t make them core aspects of his game, which is a big boost for optimism. It’s just not often you see him choose to leverage those skills when a chance to wheel, snipe, celly is available.
When it’s the other team that has the puck, Whitelaw’s effort levels seem to really drop because the next pass isn’t likely to lead to him flying up-ice with the puck. So many of his actions tell a scout watching from afar that he just doesn’t want to do anything but attack, attack, attack. I say from afar because I have zero context as to what the situation with the coaching staff is, and this could be what he is actively told to do. He’s clearly good enough where it works, he’s in the highest tier of dangerous rush attackers in the USHL. Players who typically cherry pick for rush chances often scare the hell out of me even if they are exceptional. It’s just a projection nightmare that feels impossible to fully grasp without working with the player prior to the draft, familiarizing myself with why he does what he does.
Why #29: I don’t want this negatively themed writeup to diminish what Whitelaw offers, but I feel like it’s necessary when the player in question is ranked as a late first when he undeniably carries more upside than many names ahead. I do want to praise him for a moment and say that he’s gotten better at using his shot threat to deliberately open passing lanes. Prior to this, I felt the bulk of his slot passes came from some sort of thought process along the lines of “I can’t shoot here and there’s a defender pressuring me, I can beat him and send a slot pass” without much regard for the other variables in the slot. At this level, that can often work because of unforced defensive errors, but those go away against NHLers. They recognize when players make panic passes, even the ones into good areas, and wait for them. Accounting for both defensive layers when making dangerous passes is a must, not just the first. This, plus the combination of size and individualistic tendencies, is enough to keep Whitelaw down for now. But it wouldn’t take much for him to skyrocket. If an interview provided me the reassurance that a more dynamic approach within the structure of a team is possible then this is a top fifteen player.
30: Tanner Molendyk
Tanner Molendyk in a Best-on-Best setting is just one helluva player. Not that he isn’t great in the WHL, as he most definitely is, but I’ve walked away most impressed at the Hlinka and at the Top Prospects Game. Whether that’s actually worth a whole lot.. I don’t know. Probably not. Those games are evil for long term evaluations.
A great, mobile skater who gets around with ease and leverages this agility to attack open space across all three zones. Add some deceptive handling tendencies that allow for last-second alterations to passing/shooting angles while in-motion and you have yourself one of the more interesting defenders available in the 2023 Draft. The top-speed and first-step acceleration can use some improvements for the sake of it, but I don’t see any inherent reason why that can’t ultimately happen. After all, he’s a player that’s constantly in-motion for just about anything and everything so I think anyone interested in taking him will see the necessity to upgrade the feet as much as possible. I also don’t think he’s dependent on his feet improving as he’s already a versatile enough skater to make it work, although it could limit his aggression. I think his approach can still work without it and the aggressiveness shines through due to his ability to weigh risk/reward, but you can argue that Molendyk without the aggression can fall into a bit of an identity issue and you’re wondering why you use a first round pick on that.
He’s creative with his decision making but not to an extent that appears detrimental. If clear, simple plays are available then he’ll often take him. If they aren’t, he won’t shy from attacking and making something a little more complex happen. His vision is a definite strength for puck progression, but it isn’t outstanding to the extent of perfection — sometimes Molendyk will get a little too focused on beating a layer of pressure himself and not identify an already opened lane to a very productive play. This is the largest piece of evidence of a slightly worrying trend within his game: the more complicated the solution he attempts, the more tunnel visioned he gets on the play he has brewing in his head. There’s a clear trend where this happens the most in the OZ specifically when trying to beat a set defense preventing dangerous passes, which isn’t surprising. That’s when creation is the hardest.
Ultimately, it’s not something I think is unfixable, but this ranking should reflect that it’s something I do think needs to be considered when evaluating him as an NHL player. I also think it’s possible that I’m placing too much emphasis on a pattern I’ve noticed within his game that may not tell the full story and I don’t want to get carried away and diminish all the good he can potentially provide an NHL team. As a result, I see Molendyk as a strong asset in moving the puck through the DZ and NZ, and can support possession plays in the OZ, but will probably lack any major offensive game at 5v5. I’m more than okay with that, as not every good puck-moving defender needs to play that way.
Why #30: When do you start to pass on a player who projects as a strong #4 defender in the league? Tanner plays within the flow of the game really well. There’s still a lot of value in drafting players like this, so long as the whole team is on the same page and understands that calculated aggression as a defenseman doesn’t inherently mean you’re a dangerous OZ threat. That way development can be more efficient and avoid putting him in an identity limbo. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few NHL teams view Molendyk as someone that can take a step forward offensively, especially if film sessions with him goes well.
31: Martin Mišiak
A big, physical center who can move, play-thru-contact, facilitate and, as the WJC showed, be an extremely annoying presence on the ice.
There may not be a player in my top 32 with a smaller shift-by-shift sample size, and each viewing left me with a different impression (I’m not counting the WJC here because it was a team-viewing and I probably missed a ton of details). All of them good, but none of them enough to warrant consideration of a higher tier, and all of them different enough to place him in different spots within this tier. I’m just going to be safe and place him here.
One viewing showed the real upside that exists with Mišiak, a tremendously physical presence who didn’t sacrifice his skill or passing opportunities to fully weaponize it. He was really looking like one of the best power forwards available in the draft, more desirable than Dvorský. The skill that makes Leonard so unreal isn’t present, definitely limiting where he’ll end up, but as Scouch says: this dude just plays the f***ing game.
Why #31: I don’t know where he lands, as there’s less of an understanding with this player right now and there’s already so many questions still to be answered about other players in this tier. I’m uncomfortable taking a player higher running on that small a sample size, especially when one of the two best viewings weren’t even shift-by-shift. According to those with a larger sample size, the bulk of his viewings carry a similar trend of highly projectable physical play that relishes in its simplicity. That makes sense, as fundamental-styled players don't need a whole lot to be impactful on a shift to shift basis. I’ll write more on Mišiak next time around.
32: Brayden Yager
What a shot.
Obviously I’m lower on Yager than most based on this ranking, but it appears that a good percentage of the public has cooled on Brayden as well. I need to pay testament to the shot he possesses because it’s one of those rare “f**k you” shots that an entire NHL career can be built around even if the player’s impact outside of scoring goals is a bit overrated.
I’m always of the belief that scoring goals means nothing if you’re a net negative presence on the ice in the NHL. 25 goals means you score one just under every three games, and if you are in any way responsible for a single goal against then you really can argue what value you’re bringing. You can circumvent that by helping advance play, being responsible defensively, facilitating the puck, but.. well. I would never say that Yager is a net negative presence in the WHL now because that’s far from the truth; however, I can say that the combination of his decision making half of the time he has the puck as well as his activity levels away from the puck paint the picture of a player I struggle to help out in the NHL if he doesn’t have that shot.
It’s not all bad, as Yager has some remarkable passes he’s made this year that really show he understands the gravity of his shot and how the threat opens up space everywhere. It’s such a cannon that defensive attention is a guarantee. The problem is that you have to wonder what Yager is going to do against that level of defensive attention in the NHL, and if he’s most impactful being an off-puck presence that demands respect while other linemates do the bulk of the work. Where do you take a player like that? Apparently you take them at 32. I guess it all depends on what you think he can do in the league. I’m interested in seeing how he progresses over the next few years more than most players, just because of how curious this case is.
Why #32: I think it’s fair to say that Yager impacts the game on a shift-to-shift basis less than the 31 names ahead of him outside of a few exceptions. There are also quite a few second rounders that weren’t mentioned who win in this regard as well. But, at some point, you have to take the shot, especially if the player leaves just enough in his details to inspire confidence that there actually is more to work with. All sorts of Red Deer players are slumping this year and it may actually be something that’s a bit more out of Yager’s control than my outside perspective believes. At worst, he’s Mike Hoffman.
Conclusion
If you made it this far, I owe you my deepest thanks for actually indulging what I’ve had to say. Regardless of whether you agree or not, a stupid amount of work has gone into this process and I appreciate anyone trying to engage with it.
There are obvious names that weren’t included, likely the biggest standout being Colby Barlow, but also Matthew Wood, Gabe Perreault, Koehn Ziemmer, Daniil But, Bradley Nadeau, Charlie Stramel, etc. Most of these names actually fit into the final tier as it actually extends from 15 to 39, it’s gargantuan right now (and will likely be split into two). I have my reasons for being lower on them and they’ll be explained with the next one when I expand to the top 64. Perreault and But specifically have a chance of being in the first round by then, the others.. not so much.
I haven’t really watched Samuel Honzek yet, so he’s just not listed because I’d be spewing bs if I were to talk about him.
I also just want to shout out some personal favourites who are in the second round:
Aydar Suniev, the BCHL’s king with extremely limited feet. Everything else is insane, and if the mobility can come up a fair bit then oh boy. That’s a beast. Is it impossible? I don’t know, don’t make me tap the sign!
Denver Barkey, one of the only players that I, a Habs fan, resembles Brendan Gallagher.
Tom Willander, who I only recently started watching. Dude is sick.
Andrew Strathmann, the wildcard yolo cowboy defender of the draft. Not sure what he is in the NHL but he’s shown a lot of improvement over the season and is just a boatload of fun to watch. Ironic that he’s teammates with Whitelaw considering Andrew hit him so hard at the Hlinka camp that Whitelaw turned into a beyblade mid-air.
Jakub Dvorak, just a really smart, fluid, efficient defender with a bit more skill than I originally thought. He’s doing pretty good in a pro league and no one talks about him!
Caden Price, who I originally had sixth in my pre-season list because the tools are insane and I pictured a clear path of progression. That path hasn’t really been journey’d down, but the list of toolsy defenders with actual top 4 upside in this draft is minimal and Price is one of the only names on it — flaws be damned.
Okay, that’s it. Nothing more. Thank you. <3
Great writeup Sam. When reading about Whitelaw, I was thinking about the flaws we saw in Sillinger in his draft year, trying to do it all himself because he knew he was the most talented player on the team. Think this could be the case here?