2025 NHL Draft: Lose a ton for Porter Martone

[weastern bias]

Just need to make sure we don't accidentally win too much to end up picking 5 or 6. Its the biggest reason I'm on team Trade Granlund.

We REALLY don't need to be worried about winning too many games, this team is awful

The best team we've beaten this year is Los Angeles, a team that is not a lock for a playoff spot, we needed a miracle comeback to beat Utah and a miracle goaltending performance to beat Columbus, we won "4 of 5" in a literal sense but in actuality it was largely a mirage

We're finishing 32nd again folks, we're picking top-3, do not panic

 

[cheechoo]

We REALLY don't need to be worried about winning too many games, this team is awful

The best team we've beaten this year is Los Angeles, a team that is not a lock for a playoff spot, we needed a miracle comeback to beat Utah and a miracle goaltending performance to beat Columbus, we won "4 of 5" in a literal sense but in actuality it was largely a mirage

We're finishing 32nd again folks, we're picking top-3, do not panic

We are really bad, but it feels like the competition for sucking has really increased this season.

I don't expect Nashville to still be there in a few months, but Montreal/Philadelphia/Chicago are horror-bad and then you still have Anaheim/Pittsburgh/Seattle as wildcard bottom three contenders.

I'm happy to walk away from the draft with a top three pick though, any of Hagens or Schaefer or Martone will do, personally.

 

[weastern bias]

We are really bad, but it feels like the competition for sucking has really increased this season.

I don't expect Nashville to still be there in a few months, but Montreal/Philadelphia/Chicago are horror-bad and then you still have Anaheim/Pittsburgh/Seattle as wildcard bottom three contenders.

I'm happy to walk away from the draft with a top three pick though, any of Hagens or Schaefer or Martone will do, personally.

None of these teams have the barren wasteland on the back end that we do outside of arguably Montreal

Jake Walman is a second pair player at best and look how much trouble we have getting out of our own zone as soon as he he's out of the lineup, we have 3 NHL caliber Dmen in the lineup when healthy if Ferraro continues to play this poorly and none of them are top pairing quality, a single injury turns us into nearly an AHL team on the blue line

There are some really bad teams in the league this year, we are still the cream of the crap

 

[cheechoo]

None of these teams have the barren wasteland on the back end that we do outside of arguably Montreal

Jake Walman is a second pair player at best and look how much trouble we have getting out of our own zone as soon as he he's out of the lineup, we have 3 NHL caliber Dmen in the lineup when healthy if Ferraro continues to play this poorly and none of them are top pairing quality, a single injury turns us into nearly an AHL team on the blue line

There are some really bad teams in the league this year, we are still the cream of the crap

True, it's taken some pretty anomalous situations for us to even escape the basement standings wise.

A couple of weeks ago I was preemptively queing up for McKenna in 2026 and Dupont in 2027.

 

[DG93]

True, it's taken some pretty anomalous situations for us to even escape the basement standings wise.

A couple of weeks ago I was preemptively queing up for McKenna in 2026 and Dupont in 2027.

If the Sharks are still in contention for #1 overall pick in 2027 as Celebrini/Smith's ELCs are expiring, that's a huge problem. That's also how you become a perennial loser like Buffalo, Anaheim, and Columbus. Getting a top-4 pick this year is a given, and they will likely pick top-10 in 2026 as well, but you want to see an upward trajectory starting next year (ie from top-3 pick to more so top-10) and beyond.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If the Sharks are still in contention for #1 overall pick in 2027 as Celebrini/Smith's ELCs are expiring, that's a huge problem. That's also how you become a perennial loser like Buffalo, Anaheim, and Columbus. Getting a top-4 pick this year is a given, and they will likely pick top-10 in 2026 as well, but you want to see an upward trajectory starting next year (ie from top-3 pick to more so top-10) and beyond.

Until we have some clear long term direction on the blue line, I expect us to stay in this level of the standings for the foreseeable future. I like kids like Cagnoni, Dickinson, Mukhamadullin, Thompson, and Thrun (even with his struggles). Even Furlong is off to a solid pro start. I have a hard time envisioning these guys as top guys on defense though. I don't even know if Schaefer will be that kind of guy. But even if they are it could be many years down the line past 2027. I don't know where Grier intends to snag a couple of anchors for the defense but that's the path forward towards improving in the standings. I think the forwards will come along as the years go. I think Askarov will be a reliable starter. That blue line though is still at ground zero for now.

 

[cheechoo]

If the Sharks are still in contention for #1 overall pick in 2027 as Celebrini/Smith's ELCs are expiring, that's a huge problem. That's also how you become a perennial loser like Buffalo, Anaheim, and Columbus. Getting a top-4 pick this year is a given, and they will likely pick top-10 in 2026 as well, but you want to see an upward trajectory starting next year (ie from top-3 pick to more so top-10) and beyond.

I'm just expressing how desolate and bleak it felt to start the season 0-7-2 in our first 9.

We still aren't good and as it stands I'd expect us to hover bottom ~5 in 2026 but with increased signs of our core pillars establishing themselves more and more from the season prior. Natural progression from Askarov, Smith, Mukhamadullin (please), Cagnoni, Graf etc should aid in the steady climb of the standings.

Last place in the league territory again in '25-'26 would be regression.

Hopefully bottom ~10 in 2027, and then with an established core in place + a couple more shrewd veteran additions to increase levels along the margins, challenging for a wildcard or a Pacific playoff spot by 2028.

 

[cheechoo]

Until we have some clear long term direction on the blue line, I expect us to stay in this level of the standings for the foreseeable future. I like kids like Cagnoni, Dickinson, Mukhamadullin, Thompson, and Thrun (even with his struggles). Even Furlong is off to a solid pro start. I have a hard time envisioning these guys as top guys on defense though. I don't even know if Schaefer will be that kind of guy. But even if they are it could be many years down the line past 2027. I don't know where Grier intends to snag a couple of anchors for the defense but that's the path forward towards improving in the standings. I think the forwards will come along as the years go. I think Askarov will be a reliable starter. That blue line though is still at ground zero for now.

I'd add Pohlkamp to the list.

He's development has gone about as well as you could have hoped for since being taken in the 5th round.

WJC D+1, fantastic debut season at Bemidji State as essentially the youngest player on his team and in the conference.

Transferred to NCAA champs Denver and not only integrated seamlessly but so much more. He's thriving.

But yea, years down the line.

 

[LilLeeroy]

I'd add Pohlkamp to the list.

He's development has gone about as well as you could have hoped for since being taken in the 5th round.

WJC D+1, fantastic debut season at Bemidji State as essentially the youngest player on his team and in the conference.

Transferred to NCAA champs Denver and not only integrated seamlessly but so much more. He's thriving.

But yea, years down the line.

Last year was technically his D+2 year since he went undrafted in his draft year.

 

[weastern bias]

Unless someone overachieves we don't have a single potential #1D prospect in the organization and it's the biggest hole we have

Even Dickinson would need to exceed expectations to be a truly foundational defenseman, the hope for him is to be a top-pair guy but he doesn't necessarily appear to have #1D potential

Until we have someone on the team who can carry a top pair at a respectable level we shouldn't expect the team to approach competitive play, it's so incredibly damaging to the entire roster to have your defenseman overexposed every single shift of every game, we need at least the facsimile of a top pair to push everyone else down so they can play at a level to which they are more reasonably suited

Even if we draft a generational D man they usually take a few years to round into form, unless we trade for a #1D people should expect that we're going to continue to be really bad for a good few years to come, I think 2030 is a reasonable expectation to hope to challenge for the playoffs again

 

[timorous me]

Unless someone overachieves we don't have a single potential #1D prospect in the organization and it's the biggest hole we have

Even Dickinson would need to exceed expectations to be a truly foundational defenseman, the hope for him is to be a top-pair guy but he doesn't necessarily appear to have #1D potential

Until we have someone on the team who can carry a top pair at a respectable level we shouldn't expect the team to approach competitive play, it's so incredibly damaging to the entire roster to have your defenseman overexposed every single shift of every game, we need at least the facsimile of a top pair to push everyone else down so they can play at a level to which they are more reasonably suited

Even if we draft a generational D man they usually take a few years to round into form, unless we trade for a #1D people should expect that we're going to continue to be really bad for a good few years to come, I think 2030 is a reasonable expectation to hope to challenge for the playoffs again

I'm not the one to answer this, so I'd throw this out to Jux or any other experts on prospects around the league, but I wonder how many teams out there have, as you phrased it, a single potential #1 D prospect in their organization.

To me, Dickinson is a future #2 (I hope) and Mukhamadullin has #3 written all over him. That's not bad--though of course it'll be a while before they reach those ceilings, if they actually do. One more impact guy would be massive, even if that's another #2 eventually, you could do worse than having several guys who are 2/3 type defensemen. I'd love a genuine #1 D, but I think in the next decade you're going to have teams winning without that because it feels like the number of true #1 D as we've come to think of the term are dwindling a bit.

 

[weastern bias]

I'm not the one to answer this, so I'd throw this out to Jux or any other experts on prospects around the league, but I wonder how many teams out there have, as you phrased it, a single potential #1 D prospect in their organization.

To me, Dickinson is a future #2 (I hope) and Mukhamadullin has #3 written all over him. That's not bad--though of course it'll be a while before they reach those ceilings, if they actually do. One more impact guy would be massive, even if that's another #2 eventually, you could do worse than having several guys who are 2/3 type defensemen. I'd love a genuine #1 D, but I think in the next decade you're going to have teams winning without that because it feels like the number of true #1 D as we've come to think of the term are dwindling a bit.

Not every team has a future #1D in the pipeline, but for many of them they don't mind because they have a #1D on the roster and are trying to compete right now now, their eyes are not pointed toward the future

All we have is the future, right now f***ing sucks, lol

 

[coooldude]

I'm not the one to answer this, so I'd throw this out to Jux or any other experts on prospects around the league, but I wonder how many teams out there have, as you phrased it, a single potential #1 D prospect in their organization.

To me, Dickinson is a future #2 (I hope) and Mukhamadullin has #3 written all over him. That's not bad--though of course it'll be a while before they reach those ceilings, if they actually do. One more impact guy would be massive, even if that's another #2 eventually, you could do worse than having several guys who are 2/3 type defensemen. I'd love a genuine #1 D, but I think in the next decade you're going to have teams winning without that because it feels like the number of true #1 D as we've come to think of the term are dwindling a bit.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but going off the Athletic's top 100 affiliated prospects list:

4. Levshunov - glad he's not ours, but definitely a #1 possibility
5. Zeev Buium
6. Zayne Parekh
7. Simon Nemec
9. Alex Nikishin
10. Brandt Clarke
11. Dickinson, #1 to me is a stretch but #2 is a very possible outcome
12. David Jiricek, but has been having a time in CBJ
17. Silayev, has to be argued he has #1 potential although I myself no longer believe it
24. Yakemchuk, after his camp and preseason showing I think he may deserve to be higher here
26. L. Hutson, I do not personally think he's a #1 but lots of people (Habs fans) do
29. Edvinsson, probably a big stretch to be #1 but then again they have Seider

So that's arguably 11, 12 teams with current potential #1s in the pipeline. Obviously few of these will hit a #1 ceiling... A third of them? Not sure the numbers. But still.

And that's before looking at all players under say 24 or 25, which would add a number of established but still improving players. Heiskanen, Hughes, hell Makar is only 26, Power, Dahlin, Sanderson, Dobson, Faber, Bouchard, Mintyukov. Another 9 teams with some overlap that have a clear established top pairing D who could still get better.

So not everyone has one and will have one but a majority of the league has one or is developing one.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I'm not the one to answer this, so I'd throw this out to Jux or any other experts on prospects around the league, but I wonder how many teams out there have, as you phrased it, a single potential #1 D prospect in their organization.

To me, Dickinson is a future #2 (I hope) and Mukhamadullin has #3 written all over him. That's not bad--though of course it'll be a while before they reach those ceilings, if they actually do. One more impact guy would be massive, even if that's another #2 eventually, you could do worse than having several guys who are 2/3 type defensemen. I'd love a genuine #1 D, but I think in the next decade you're going to have teams winning without that because it feels like the number of true #1 D as we've come to think of the term are dwindling a bit.

There is a world where Sam Dickinson becomes a #1D, he's got all the tools in the world. It would just take a lot going right and I don't think it's likely.

#1D upside is a nebulous thing. I would say there's maybe a dozen guys with that upside. Off the top of my head, all six of the first drafted D in 2024 have the upside, even though I would put money on none of them hitting it. Nemec, Jiricek, Nikishin, Simashev, Mintyukov, Hughes, Clarke. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if literally none of them hit it by my admittedly strict definition of #1D.

 

[Skeksis25]

Well you are going to need some luck/overachieving to have a bonafide #1D type of prospect in your organization. Even guys like Makar and Quinn Hughes overachieved cause if teams knew they would turn into what they have, they would be sureshot #1 overall guys. Unless we happen to be picking #1 overall in a year when a guy is considered to be a bonafide #1 D type prospect is available, we are just going to have to try to stock up on a handful of Dickinson like prospects and hope one of them overachieves,

Sure would be nice to have some lower round guy in the org turn into the Pavelski of defensemen for us. Maybe Pohlkamp? Long long long way to go though.

 

[Shark Finn]

We - and other teams - do need those later round gems too.

 

[weastern bias]

I wasn't trying to say we won't be competitive for a playoff spot until we have a #1D, however I don't think we have the organizational depth at defense to be competitive until we at least have a reasonable approximation of a top pair to play hard minutes and not get killed during their deployment

Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick

Mario Ferraro is playing over 20 minutes a night for us and he has an xGA/60 of 3.76, tied for 9th worst in the league right now amongst D men, but ahead of him on the list are players who have played 6, 5, 3, 3, 1, and 1 games, he's functionally one of the least effective defensemen in the league right now and it puts excess pressure on everyone else on the team to make up for just what a bad job he's doing againt difficult competition

It's the NHL, hard minutes are going to happen, but if no one on the team can at least tread water during difficult deployment it has a trickle down effect that makes everyone else on the roster less effective because they're trying to overcompensate for constantly being in a hole, and it isn't reasonable to expect depth performers to pick up the slack for the top players on the team, that's not what their role is supposed to be

If we even replaced him with a bang-on-average top-pair defender this team would look a lot better, having someone not constantly getting killed in top minutes would instantly make everyone else on the team perform much better, if we replaced him with an actual #1D this team would be borderline fun to watch even when the shiny new toys aren't on the ice

 

[timorous me]

There is a world where Sam Dickinson becomes a #1D, he's got all the tools in the world. It would just take a lot going right and I don't think it's likely.

#1D upside is a nebulous thing. I would say there's maybe a dozen guys with that upside. Off the top of my head, all six of the first drafted D in 2024 have the upside, even though I would put money on none of them hitting it. Nemec, Jiricek, Nikishin, Simashev, Mintyukov, Hughes, Clarke. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if literally none of them hit it by my admittedly strict definition of #1D.

Yeah, I think my definition is more restrictive than some others' might be (it's like in baseball; just because every team has a #1 pitcher in the rotation, it doesn't mean they have a true ace), and one of the things I love about the Sharks getting Dickinson in the draft is the hope that he could be more of an all-around first-pairing d-man, whereas some of those drafted around or ahead of him look like they'll lean much more heavily on the offensive side.

 

[hohosaregood]

I feel like there's very few who are a true #1D while not being a straight up superstar. So the definition ends up being conflated with superstar more often than not.

Dickinson seems like he could be a guy playing 22+ minutes in his prime while being 4+ min on special teams. Could easily see him in a top pairing role. Maybe not a true #1D but he's gonna be an integral part of whatever our top 3 looks like

 

[CanadienShark]

I feel like there's very few who are a true #1D while not being a straight up superstar. So the definition ends up being conflated with superstar more often than not.

Dickinson seems like he could be a guy playing 22+ minutes in his prime while being 4+ min on special teams. Could easily see him in a top pairing role. Maybe not a true #1D but he's gonna be an integral part of whatever our top 3 looks like

Well put! Maybe won't have the flash of what many people expect of the #1D label, but can still be an effective player in that role and contribute to a winning team.

 

[matt trick]

The following teams likely have their number one for the next decade:

Franchise #1 is under 30: Vancouver (Hughes), Colorado (Makar), Dallas (Heiskanen), NYR (Fox), Buffalo (Dahlin), Boston (McAvoy), Winnipeg (Morrisey), Edmonton (Bouchard), NYI (Dobson), Ottawa (Sanderson), Detroit (Seider), NJD (Hamilton now, Hughes in the future)
Close: Columbus (Werenski), Carolina (Slavin), Florida (Forsling--> Hard to say post cup, but I'm not sold on his as a #1; very sold on Barkov however), Minnesota (Faber), Vegas (Hanifin)

Hughes, Schaefer, Levshunov, and Nikishin look like the cream of the crop amongst d prospects. Clarke, Buium, Dickinson, Yakemchuk, Mintyukov, Silayev, Parekh all look really interesting as well, but not sure any of them are surefire #1 d prospects. One of ASP, Hutson, Casey, Mateychuk, Zellweger, or someone will end up being the next Adam Fox/Jared Spurgeon, and two will completely bust. I have absolutely no idea who it'll be. Let's go with Cagnoni is the next Fox.

Harley, Vlasic, Power, Guhle, Broberg, Byram, and Edvinsson are playing at a high-level and still have more upside, but I only see Power as potentially becoming a #1.

Also, I think some of these points were made already, but I wrote this a day or two ago, so I'm posting it anyway lol.

 

[DG93]

The following teams likely have their number one for the next decade:

Franchise #1 is under 30: Vancouver (Hughes), Colorado (Makar), Dallas (Heiskanen), NYR (Fox), Buffalo (Dahlin), Boston (McAvoy), Winnipeg (Morrisey), Edmonton (Bouchard), NYI (Dobson), Ottawa (Sanderson), Detroit (Seider), NJD (Hamilton now, Hughes in the future)
Close: Columbus (Werenski), Carolina (Slavin), Florida (Forsling--> Hard to say post cup, but I'm not sold on his as a #1; very sold on Barkov however), Minnesota (Faber), Vegas (Hanifin)

Hughes, Schaefer, Levshunov, and Nikishin look like the cream of the crop amongst d prospects. Clarke, Buium, Dickinson, Yakemchuk, Mintyukov, Silayev, Parekh all look really interesting as well, but not sure any of them are surefire #1 d prospects. One of ASP, Hutson, Casey, Mateychuk, Zellweger, or someone will end up being the next Adam Fox/Jared Spurgeon, and two will completely bust. I have absolutely no idea who it'll be. Let's go with Cagnoni is the next Fox.

Harley, Vlasic, Power, Guhle, Broberg, Byram, and Edvinsson are playing at a high-level and still have more upside, but I only see Power as potentially becoming a #1.

Also, I think some of these points were made already, but I wrote this a day or two ago, so I'm posting it anyway lol.

I think calling Bouchard and Dobson franchise #1D is aggressive

 

[matt trick]

I think calling Bouchard and Dobson franchise #1D is aggressive

If I remove the word 'franchise' are you content? Those two are both top 10-15 guys in the league.

 

[DG93]

If I remove the word 'franchise' are you content? Those two are both top 10-15 guys in the league.

Not really, I don't think either is a #1D at all lol

 

[matt trick]

Not really, I don't think either is a #1D at all lol

I think the time of the premier two-way D is about over. With Hedman and Doughty aging out, it’s pretty much down to Heiskanen, Sanderson, Seider, Makar, and maybe Hughes.