Prospect Info: 2025 Draft: We are #1….1

[Empoleon8771]

But until that happens there no such thing as taking that as an actual prospect to actually making that decision now.

Maybe if they traded him this offseason you'd have your scenario.

The Sharks lost their ability to withstand their injuries to Pavelski leaving.

Basically, you are praying for a miracle.

The discussion regarding the Rangers pick is about the risk of something going bad that results in their pick ending up high next year. The Sharks in 2019 had that exact scenario happen, they had a lot of serious injuries to core players and it caused them to completely collapse in the standings. Considering the Rangers are an insanely flawed team that has been propped up by Shesterkin, an injury to Shesterkin would be devastating to them and almost assuredly result in their pick next year being high.

I literally don't even know what your point here is. My point is that the risk of the Rangers handing over an unprotected 1st in a stacked draft with McKenna at the top is a legitimate point of consideration for the Rangers. It's not as simple as "we plan to be better next year so we'll definitely be better".

 

[Jacob]

Shesterkin sucked for most of this year and they still weren’t *that* bad.

 

[Ugene Magic]

The discussion regarding the Rangers pick is about the risk of something going bad that results in their pick ending up high next year. The Sharks in 2019 had that exact scenario happen, they had a lot of serious injuries to core players and it caused them to completely collapse in the standings. Considering the Rangers are an insanely flawed team that has been propped up by Shesterkin, an injury to Shesterkin would be devastating to them and almost assuredly result in their pick next year being high.

I literally don't even know what your point here is. My point is that the risk of the Rangers handing over an unprotected 1st in a stacked draft with McKenna at the top is a legitimate point of consideration for the Rangers. It's not as simple as "we plan to be better next year so we'll definitely be better".

A tier 3/4 drafted prospect is all the same, and your premise is looking to be top 5 and landing McKenna is all I see in your proposal. Their pick will be no more likely than this years #12 at best, but that also relies on a perceived draft being deeper when there's still no data to suggest it to be true. It's basically McKenna driving the draft.

 

[eXile3]

I’ve actually watched some Hagens games since they’re on ESPN+. Love his skating and vision.

Little worried about his production though. A PPG as a freshman is good but someone compared it to Berniers which has been meh in the NHL. I still would take #3? Maybe #4 behind Matrone?

 

[Jared Grayden]

Shesterkin sucked for most of this year and they still weren’t *that* bad.

Shesterkin concerns me way more than anything else. He plays up to his Vezina abilities and it doesn't matter how old the forwards are or how bad the defense is, he'll steal games regularly.

 

[Empoleon8771]

A tier 3/4 drafted prospect is all the same, and your premise is looking to be top 5 and landing McKenna is all I see in your proposal.

What are you talking about? I'm not proposing anything. I'm talking about the risk the Rangers have to consider when deciding whether to hand over that pick.

Their pick will be no more likely than this years #12 at best, but that also relies on a perceived draft being deeper when there's still no data to suggest it to be true. It's basically McKenna driving the draft.

Hilariously uneducated opinion.

Shesterkin sucked for most of this year and they still weren’t *that* bad.

Shesterkin had a +21.6 GSAx this year.

He didn't "suck for most of the year". The Rangers are just horrendous. If he gets injured and Quick takes over the starter's role, they're a bottom-5 team in the NHL next year.

 

[The Old Master]

What are you talking about? I'm not proposing anything. I'm talking about the risk the Rangers have to consider when deciding whether to hand over that pick.



Hilariously uneducated opinion.



Shesterkin had a +21.6 GSAx this year.

He didn't "suck for most of the year". The Rangers are just horrendous. If he gets injured and Quick takes over the starter's role, they're a bottom-5 team in the NHL next year.

for some strange reason i can see that pen's team not being able to stop on their way to the net when we play them.

 

[Peat]

IMO the actual "blue chip prospects" in this draft run out at #2. #5 is looking more like Frondell, Desnoyers, Martone or Hagens. I think you can argue Hagens is a blue chip prospect with a depreciated stock, but I don't think the others are legit "blue chip prospects".

Yeah, fair enough. But there is, or so I read again and again, a big tier stepdown there.

I can't find a solid looking study right now but the impression I always got was that draft success starts falling off rapidly very quickly. As pointed out a few times, you pretty much never see pick for pick trade ups in the top 10 in the NHL, and I think that's linked.

So in general, 5 for 11/12 seems unlikely in general, but in this draft?

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

As a team with no significant prospects in the system, a core of like 38 year old dudes, a mess of a blueline and a shitshow in goal--there is no downside to committing to the tank. You're not sacrificing anything. There is no "now" for the Pittsburgh Penguins, regardless of what PR yinzer slop the team or sports media are feeding the fanbase.

If you miss out on the 1st overall, oh well. You're still positioned to land like a top 3 to 5 prospect until Sid retires, then it's sure fire last place territory.

As for the Rangers' pick; that team sucks. It's Shesterkin and Panarin, and if either has a bad season or gets a significant injury, they're pretty easily picking top 10, maybe top 5. Zero depth, aging core, and one (Perreault) prospect of significance that I'm sure Sullivan's gonna do wonders for. Not impressed with their blueline beyond Fox either, it'll be interesting to see what Sullivan's defensive structure does there.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yeah, fair enough. But there is, or so I read again and again, a big tier stepdown there.

I can't find a solid looking study right now but the impression I always got was that draft success starts falling off rapidly very quickly. As pointed out a few times, you pretty much never see pick for pick trade ups in the top 10 in the NHL, and I think that's linked.

So in general, 5 for 11/12 seems unlikely in general, but in this draft?

I think there are 2 arguments to be made with that trade here:

1. The draft declined pretty clearly after the top of the draft, so you're getting a clear downgrade from #5 to #11
2. The top of this draft is also weak and falls off after Misa, so you're not really getting a true "#5 talent" by trading up from #11 and #12 to #5 unless you get Hagens

It depends largely on who is available at those picks, but based on the caliber of players with those picks, I think this trade in a normal draft would be something like #8 for #15 and #16 based on the prospects that will be there. Like Desnoyers is not a #5 pick in a decent draft, nor is Aitcheson a #11 pick in a decent draft. The fact that Brady Martin is a lock for a top-10 pick should make it pretty clear how shitty this draft class is, and I'm saying that when I absolutely love Martin as a prospect. He's simply not a legitimate top-10 prospect.

Basically I can see either team saying no and it making sense depending on who's there at #5. If it's Hagens, I think Nashville should absolutely say no to trading Hagens for say Eklund and Aitcheson. If it's O'Brien, I think the Penguins should absolutely say no to trading Eklund and Aitcheson for O'Brien. If it's one of Martone, Frondell or Desnoyers, it really depends on how you view those guys. Personally, I'm a slight yes on Martone but a slight no on Frondell and Desnoyers from the Penguins POV.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

I'm entirely on board with throwing somebody a 2nd rounder to move up and snag Martone if he's sitting at like 8 or 9. He's not a center, but he'd be the best prospect this team's had since Staal, on paper. Definitely the best prospect in over a decade. He's like a much better McGroarty imo.

I'd also try and trade up if Hagens is sitting a few picks ahead of the Pens if the asking price was reasonable. There's a lot of Jack Hughes' style in Hagens' game, minus the shot. Really great skater, fantastic puck skills. Not sure if he's a winger or center at the NHL level but it doesn't matter imo. Skill is skill.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

Beauty of pre draft tiers and groups is that it’s almost a sure thing they will be dead wrong in a few years.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

Yeah, five years down the road some 2nd rounder is gonna be the steal of the draft and Misa's gonna be Poulin or some shit.

 

[Peat]

I think there are 2 arguments to be made with that trade here:

1. The draft declined pretty clearly after the top of the draft, so you're getting a clear downgrade from #5 to #11
2. The top of this draft is also weak and falls off after Misa, so you're not really getting a true "#5 talent" by trading up from #11 and #12 to #5 unless you get Hagens

It depends largely on who is available at those picks, but based on the caliber of players with those picks, I think this trade in a normal draft would be something like #8 for #15 and #16 based on the prospects that will be there. Like Desnoyers is not a #5 pick in a decent draft, nor is Aitcheson a #11 pick in a decent draft. The fact that Brady Martin is a lock for a top-10 pick should make it pretty clear how shitty this draft class is, and I'm saying that when I absolutely love Martin as a prospect. He's simply not a legitimate top-10 prospect.

Basically I can see either team saying no and it making sense depending on who's there at #5. If it's Hagens, I think Nashville should absolutely say no to trading Hagens for say Eklund and Aitcheson. If it's O'Brien, I think the Penguins should absolutely say no to trading Eklund and Aitcheson for O'Brien. If it's one of Martone, Frondell or Desnoyers, it really depends on how you view those guys. Personally, I'm a slight yes on Martone but a slight no on Frondell and Desnoyers from the Penguins POV.

I don't know the individuals well enough to comment on the specifics - I haven't really tracked the draft this year, and what I've read has made me a lil depressed about the idea of digging further - but I think there's two times when trading down appears particularly unappealing.

1) The top of the draft is unusually lit and you're drafting out of probable franchise talent
2) The draft tapers off quickly and, while the talent at the top mightn't quite be what you were hoping for, it represents one of a few good odds bets against getting a player who's more than just a guy

I think we're on number two. I think that, exact identity of the good odds bets aside, Nashville would have to be really stupid to trade down here even before considering their identity as pretty much never having elite forwards.

If, I don't know, it was something like how 2017 was viewed, with no real franchise talents but kinda interesting guys going deep (we'll ignore how that actually played out) I might get it. But this one? Nah.

 

[Gurglesons]

Hagens is gonna be the Logan Cooley of this draft.

No idea what teams are thinking if he isn't top three.

 

[lokomotiv15]

I don't doubt that both O'Brien and Martin are very likely top-10 picks that will be gone by #11, but I also think it's worth asking if all of these "forgone conclusion top-10 picks" are actually going to be top-10 picks. The reason I mention that is that it's pretty rare that the top-10 players in mock drafts end up the top-10 players picked in the draft, even McKenzie tends to only go 6/10 or 7/10.

Even with the hype around Martin right now, it has really only showed up in Button's mock draft that has him at #6. McKenzie's list from like 2 weeks ago had Martin at #12, Central Scouting had him as the #11 ranked NA skater a month ago and Elite Prospects had him at #18 about a month ago as well. The "vibes" top-10 I have right now is:

1. NYI: Schaefer
2. San Jose: Misa
3. Chicago: Frondell
4. Utah: Martone
5. Nashville: Hagens
6. Philly: Desnoyers
7. Boston: O'Brien
8. Seattle: Martin
9. Buffalo: Mrtka
10. Anaheim: McQueen

But of this list, you're going to have probably 2 or 3 of these guys not going in the top-10 and others (Eklund and Lakovic stick out as potential risers) replacing them. Mrtka is an obvious guy to fall out, but beyond him, my next best guess is probably Martin. Now if McQueen's physicals come back completely f***ed, he's falling way outside of the top-10, but he's 100% going top-10 if his physicals are fine.

I can see Hagens sliding as well, where it would be something like:

-Nashville takes O'Brien
-Boston takes McQueen since they want a center and O'Brien is gone
-Anaheim takes Lakovic over Hagens since they want to add size
-Other picks don't change and Hagens falls out of the top-10

But I can't realistically see Boston passing on a Boston College center if he makes it to #7.

Agreed. What I posted was what he's told me about their position and his branch's input to the final amateur scouting report for the draft, as of now.

I personally don't know if Martin is dynamic enough, even with what else he brings to the table, to be a surefire top 10, or "a good top-10 in any draft". O'Brien's production breakdown also gives me the jitters a bit. He's obviously not an Angelo Esposito, but I'd feel a lot more confident about the production if he wasn't riding shot gun with a 70 goal scorer on one of the top CHL offenses. Love the tools, though. Passes the eye test for the most part.

I can't remember the last time a guy went from projected 1OA to talked about so little. There was a lot of talk about Wright not doing first and back and forth in previous years, but Hagens has slid down to that 3-6 spot without so much as a whimper.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

If you watched any of the u18… Stenberg is awesome. The way he can control the puck down low.. I really enjoyed him. He was probably the best individual player at the tourney imo. But he’s a small winger, so how high does he go next year.

Verhoeff, Belchetz, Roobreck are guys that I think will determine how strong that top 10 and early part of the draft is. If they have good seasons they’re too big, too athletic to not be high picks. Will push others down.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Agreed. What I posted was what he's told me about their position and his branch's input to the final amateur scouting report for the draft, as of now.

I personally don't know if Martin is dynamic enough, even with what else he brings to the table, to be a surefire top 10, or "a good top-10 in any draft". O'Brien's production breakdown also gives me the jitters a bit. He's obviously not an Angelo Esposito, but I'd feel a lot more confident about the production if he wasn't riding shot gun with a 70 goal scorer on one of the top CHL offenses. Love the tools, though. Passes the eye test for the most part.

I can't remember the last time a guy went from projected 1OA to talked about so little. There was a lot of talk about Wright not doing first and back and forth in previous years, but Hagens has slid down to that 3-6 spot without so much as a whimper.

The level of hype Martin is getting is just a sign for how bad this draft actually is IMO. I really like Martin, but he's firmly not a top-10 caliber player in a quality draft. That's why I have him closer to #8 or #9 in the draft, that feels appropriate for where he should be going in this draft. In a normal draft, he's a mid 1st rounder firmly, probably going in the #14-#16 range. I'd be happy to get him at #11 but any team that takes him at like #6 is just being dumb IMO.

Even with the Sam Bennett comparison for his upside, Bennett is not a top-10 guy in a 2014 redraft even if you only consider his time in Florida. That draft easily has like 10 guys that are inarguably better than Bennett between Ekblad, Reinhart, Draisaitl, Nylander, Fiala, Larkin, Pastrnak, Point, Sorokin and Toews. Then you can add on a bunch of comparable guys that you can justify over Bennett as well between guys like Ehlers, Tuch (who I think is definitely better than Bennett but will include him in the debatable level), McCann, Kempe, Barbashev, Montour and such. This also doesn't address that Bennett was way better in juniors than Martin has been.

A big reason why I can see this draft looking way different than mocks is due to the weakness of the draft, there will be some teams that are way higher than some guys than other teams are. Purely IMO, but I'd rank the actual caliber of the prospects in this draft as:

-Schaefer: #1 pick
-Misa: #3/4 pick
-Hagens: #4/5 pick
-McQueen: #5/6 pick if he's healthy
-Martone: #6/7 pick
-Frondell: #7/8 pick
-Desnoyers: #8/9 pick
-O'Brien: #10/11 pick
-Eklund: #12/13 pick
-Martin: #14/15 pick
-Mrtka: #14/15 pick

I think this is about it in terms of true "top-15" caliber players in this draft, guys like Bear and Smith seem like late teens picks and Lakovic, Carbonneau, Aitcheson and Reschny feel like early 20s picks in a normal draft. And I think there's an argument to bump Mrtka out of the true "top-15" caliber player list as well.

Based on the mock drafts, the only guys that seem to be projected to go at appropriate slots in the top-15 are Schaefer, Hagens, McQueen (if he's healthy) and Eklund. Everyone else looks like they're going to get overdrafted relative to their quality.

 

[lokomotiv15]

If you watched any of the u18… Stenberg is awesome. The way he can control the puck down low.. I really enjoyed him. He was probably the best individual player at the tourney imo. But he’s a small winger, so how high does he go next year.

Verhoeff, Belchetz, Roobreck are guys that I think will determine how strong that top 10 and early part of the draft is. If they have good seasons they’re too big, too athletic to not be high picks. Will push others down.

I wish he was one of those early birthday kids that wasn't turning 17 until July-August as opposed to turning 18 in late September. It would give me a bit of hope that maybe he gets that extra inch to push him to 6'. The way he plays, with his skillset, in a 6', 190 lbs body would be exactly the kind of winter you're super happy with picking in that 6-10 range in a good draft year.

I think Verhoeff projects straight into the top-5 for next year as everything currently stands. 13 months is a long ways a way, but that size, with his vision, how he activates on O and positions decently on D already, he could be a 6'4/5, 225 lbs 80 pts d-man in his draft year. Kid works his bag off out there and competes hard, too. Very good shot and a late birthdate, as well.

Belchetz kind of fell flat for me as a guy I was hearing about going top 5 to the NHL in him Bantam draft year. Hot start and fizzled hard, but has next year to put those tools to use, grow his game into that frame and make a good top-10 push.

Roobroeck I've known since he was about 9 and the kid has put in more work and time than any of my other friends who havework to get to/ played in the NHL. We had a buddy who didn't get drafted his draft year and grinded to the point we thought he was crazy the next year. Didn't see him all summer. Ended up going 3rd round next year as a 19 year old and played a good chunk of games in the NHL. Roobroeck has been working that hard since he was in grade 5. Dad's a bit of a nut, though, which contributed to that. Has all the tools and work ethic to be a sure-fire top 10, and potentially top-5.

Bjork, Villeneuve, Lin are all guys who are slightly undersized for their positions but have insane skill sets and hockey IQ.

Aaram-Olsen will be cool to watch as a Norwegian with potentially the best shot in the entire draft.

 

[Jacob]

Martin seems pretty comparable to Iginla who went 6th last year, McQueen comparable to Lindstrom who went 4th.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Martin seems pretty comparable to Iginla who went 6th last year, McQueen comparable to Lindstrom who went 4th.

Iginla was also ranked as a guy mostly in that mid 1st range before the draft and was a bit of a surprise to go as high as he did.

McKenzie's end of year draft rankings had him at #10. I also think Iginla was more skilled than Martin.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

I wish he was one of those early birthday kids that wasn't turning 17 until July-August as opposed to turning 18 in late September. It would give me a bit of hope that maybe he gets that extra inch to push him to 6'. The way he plays, with his skillset, in a 6', 190 lbs body would be exactly the kind of winter you're super happy with picking in that 6-10 range in a good draft year.

I think Verhoeff projects straight into the top-5 for next year as everything currently stands. 13 months is a long ways a way, but that size, with his vision, how he activates on O and positions decently on D already, he could be a 6'4/5, 225 lbs 80 pts d-man in his draft year. Kid works his bag off out there and competes hard, too. Very good shot and a late birthdate, as well.

Belchetz kind of fell flat for me as a guy I was hearing about going top 5 to the NHL in him Bantam draft year. Hot start and fizzled hard, but has next year to put those tools to use, grow his game into that frame and make a good top-10 push.

Roobroeck I've known since he was about 9 and the kid has put in more work and time than any of my other friends who havework to get to/ played in the NHL. We had a buddy who didn't get drafted his draft year and grinded to the point we thought he was crazy the next year. Didn't see him all summer. Ended up going 3rd round next year as a 19 year old and played a good chunk of games in the NHL. Roobroeck has been working that hard since he was in grade 5. Dad's a bit of a nut, though, which contributed to that. Has all the tools and work ethic to be a sure-fire top 10, and potentially top-5.

Bjork, Villeneuve, Lin are all guys who are slightly undersized for their positions but have insane skill sets and hockey IQ.

Aaram-Olsen will be cool to watch as a Norwegian with potentially the best shot in the entire draft.

yeah I think with Stenberg he’s producing and playing like a top 2-3 pick (honestly 1OA type stats) but he doesn’t have elite speed and is sub 6 feet. And a winger. So hard for me to pencil him in high. But if you don’t project to the NHL and just take players for what they are… he might be the 2nd best ‘07 on the planet.

Agree with the OHLers

I am very very interested with what happens with Villanueve. Basically everyone is getting a shot to redo Lane Hutson. How does he get valued? I’m wondering if he’s top 10 or more in that late lottery range.

 

[Jacob]

Iginla was also ranked as a guy mostly in that mid 1st range before the draft and was a bit of a surprise to go as high as he did.

View attachment 1040501

McKenzie's end of year draft rankings had him at #10. I also think Iginla was more skilled than Martin.

Partly buoyed by name-recognition but he also had a good U18s like Martin did.

 

[lokomotiv15]

yeah I think with Stenberg he’s producing and playing like a top 2-3 pick (honestly 1OA type stats) but he doesn’t have elite speed and is sub 6 feet. And a winger. So hard for me to pencil him in high. But if you don’t project to the NHL and just take players for what they are… he might be the 2nd best ‘07 on the planet.

Agree with the OHLers

I am very very interested with what happens with Villanueve. Basically everyone is getting a shot to redo Lane Hutson. How does he get valued? I’m wondering if he’s top 10 or more in that late lottery range.

Yeah, I think if you give him anything close to Matthew Schaefer size you have another top-5 candidate. He's literally a copy paste of Hutson; size, handedness, weight, skating. I haven't seen enough to really gauge his defending under pressure or compete game to game to game, but he'll be interesting to follow this season and see where he ends up.