NHL Entry Draft: 2026 NHL Draft pick watch: Rangers with 5th pick after Lottery

[bhamill]

This was a draft I wanted a lot of 2nd round picks to use for drafting or slight trade ups. We just didn't get it.

Sorry, best I can do is one late 2nd and an assload of 3rds.

 

[eco's bones]

Is this a needs draft year? I was thinking maybe we might go BPA with all our picks.

Who the BPA is often gets more and more subjective the further into the first round (and the rest of the draft for that matter) you go. Scouts/Scouting staffs rank players into tiers for reasons and when the tiers get larger teams tend more to go with their needs. As for defensemen---we should all know that offensive skill is not some be all and end all---teams for sure are looking for d-men who can move and break out pucks but they also want guys who can handle physical pressure and not panic or get overwhelmed in their own zone.

I haven't looked at much video of Bleyl. I have looked at quite a bit of Villeneuve. Villeneuve does try to play D and he's extremely elusive carrying the puck even in short spaces. He's also got a lot of hockey IQ and sees the ice extremely well. I wouldn't say he's a lock to become a Lane Hutson like player but he could be. He is playing in the Q but he's headed for Boston College which is a smart move for him IMO. It should be a real step up in competition. I don't think he neglects the defensive side of the game but he does have small D issues at that and Hockey East will be a big step but not as big a step from there to the pros than from the Q to the pros. So that should help him but like Verhoeff he might need a break in year and then settle down and be more comfortable after a second year. After that he might be a lot more ready. That anyway is my read on Villeneuve......and Bleyl's might be pretty close to that. I know he ended up outpointing Villeneuve and had a great playoffs. I will say though I wouldn't put any emphasis on whether Bleyl grew up a Rangers fan as a real reason for drafting him.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Who the BPA is often gets more and more subjective the further into the first round (and the rest of the draft for that matter) you go. Scouts/Scouting staffs rank players into tiers for reasons and when the tiers get larger teams tend more to go with their needs. As for defensemen---we should all know that offensive skill is not some be all and end all---teams for sure are looking for d-men who can move and break out pucks but they also want guys who can handle physical pressure and not panic or get overwhelmed in their own zone.

I haven't looked at much video of Bleyl. I have looked at quite a bit of Villeneuve. Villeneuve does try to play D and he's extremely elusive carrying the puck even in short spaces. He's also got a lot of hockey IQ and sees the ice extremely well. I wouldn't say he's a lock to become a Lane Hutson like player but he could be. He is playing in the Q but he's headed for Boston College which is a smart move for him IMO. It should be a real step up in competition. I don't think he neglects the defensive side of the game but he does have small D issues at that and Hockey East will be a big step but not as big a step from there to the pros than from the Q to the pros. So that should help him but like Verhoeff he might need a break in year and then settle down and be more comfortable after a second year. After that he might be a lot more ready. That anyway is my read on Villeneuve......and Bleyl's might be pretty close to that. I know he ended up outpointing Villeneuve and had a great playoffs. I will say though I wouldn't put any emphasis on whether Bleyl grew up a Rangers fan as a real reason for drafting him.

I'm amazed how you follow all these guys. Its impressive. I never heard of half these guys. I appreciate your posts on the prospects.

 

[GAGLine]

Is this a needs draft year? I was thinking maybe we might go BPA with all our picks.

I think you always have to consider need to some degree. What the team needs today can be very different than what they need a few years down the road. but they can look at the areas of strength or weakness in their farm system or look at their roster and project what they will need later and make decisions accordingly.

Obviously, if you have one player rated far above another, then you should take the higher rated player regardless of position. If Stenberg is available at 5 and they feel he is head and shoulders above anyone else they might draft in that spot, then by all means take him. But if the gap between him and someone else is small, and that other player plays a more important position, then I have no problem with them taking that other player.

It's very obvious that we need centers and defensemen. Yes, we could use a winger as well, but winger isn't as much of a need and isn't as important of a position. We've tried building teams around a winger, and it hasn't worked very well. We had Jagr, then Gaborik, then Nash, then Panarin. We drafted in the top 10 4 times in the last 9 years and took 3 wingers, none of which ended up living up to their draft position.

People can say we should always take the BPA, but teams misidentify the BPA all the time, as we proven time and again. IIRC, they had Kravtsov rated as the 2nd best forward, or maybe it was the 2nd best player, in 2018. When people say BPA, they often go by the general consensus, but that doesn't always work out either (Kakko and Laf).

I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I'd guess that the chances of a team taking the BPA and it being the wrong pick is about the same as a team drafting for need and making the wrong pick. At the end of the day, teams have to weigh all the variables, make the best choice they can, and then hope for the best.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I think you always have to consider need to some degree. What the team needs today can be very different than what they need a few years down the road. but they can look at the areas of strength or weakness in their farm system or look at their roster and project what they will need later and make decisions accordingly.

Obviously, if you have one player rated far above another, then you should take the higher rated player regardless of position. If Stenberg is available at 5 and they feel he is head and shoulders above anyone else they might draft in that spot, then by all means take him. But if the gap between him and someone else is small, and that other player plays a more important position, then I have no problem with them taking that other player.

It's very obvious that we need centers and defensemen. Yes, we could use a winger as well, but winger isn't as much of a need and isn't as important of a position. We've tried building teams around a winger, and it hasn't worked very well. We had Jagr, then Gaborik, then Nash, then Panarin. We drafted in the top 10 4 times in the last 9 years and took 3 wingers, none of which ended up living up to their draft position.

People can say we should always take the BPA, but teams misidentify the BPA all the time, as we proven time and again. IIRC, they had Kravtsov rated as the 2nd best forward, or maybe it was the 2nd best player, in 2018. When people say BPA, they often go by the general consensus, but that doesn't always work out either (Kakko and Laf).

I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I'd guess that the chances of a team taking the BPA and it being the wrong pick is about the same as a team drafting for need and making the wrong pick. At the end of the day, teams have to weigh all the variables, make the best choice they can, and then hope for the best.

I just figured that we need elite guys everywhere but goalie. We lack elite guys.

 

[TGWL]

I just figured that we need elite guys everywhere but goalie. We lack elite guys.

If we select a D, the next biggest hole, especially in the future is down the middle. Logically it would make sense to select a center in the later 1st. However, when you look at the centers projected late 1st and then look at the potential D who could be available if dropped a little, it makes being logical a bit hard. Some of those D men could end up being top 12 players in this draft if they fix some biggest areas of concern. A lot of skill there between skating and puck moving ability. There might be higher upside in those players if it works out. Will definitely make their decision difficult depending who drops. There's reaches every year.

 

[NickyFotiu]

If we select a D, the next biggest hole, especially in the future is down the middle. Logically it would make sense to select a center in the later 1st. However, when you look at the centers projected late 1st and then look at the potential D who could be available if dropped a little, it makes being logical a bit hard. Some of those D men could end up being top 12 players in this draft if they fix some biggest areas of concern. A lot of skill there between skating and puck moving ability. There might be higher upside in those players if it works out. Will definitely make their decision difficult depending who drops. There's reaches every year.

I would be concerned that we reach for a position who busts out and miss out on a guy that becomes a very good player. We could always trade guys if we end up with a lot of good players at 1 position.

 

[eco's bones]

I'm amazed how you follow all these guys. Its impressive. I never heard of half these guys. I appreciate your posts on the prospects.

Usually most years I don't go to all the trouble. About half way through the year I'd given up on the Rangers NHL team and started focusing on the draft more instead. It helped to motivate by having two first rounders. When you don't have even one it's like why knock yourself out?

Villeneuve for at least half of this year had been considered a top 10 pick---he's dropped a bit and that happens to smaller D a lot and pretty much every year. Not saying it's right but it's not unusual. Bleyl on the other hand midway through the year was seen more as a 3rd/middle rounder so he's risen a lot in the second half. He is also going the college route to Michigan State which is as good an idea for him as with Villeneuve. Which one of those two goes first? They seem a lot alike to me. I have no idea.

 

[Filip Chytil]

Good read:

“I wouldn’t want to be picking 1 this year,” said a scouting director. “There’s a very good chance the best player in this draft doesn’t even go in the top five. I also think whoever goes 1 will have unrealistic expectations put on them. None of these guys are (Matthew) Schaefer, (Macklin) Celebrini (or Connor) Bedard.”

That lack of a singular, defined tier has created a fractured landscape across the league.

“There’s no clear guy this year. There’s a group,” said another scout. “And I could see that group go in almost any order, although I think Gavin McKenna should be in the top two somewhere.”

“There are six, seven guys for me, and they are all very close: McKenna, (Chase) Reid, (Ivar) Stenberg, (Carson) Carels, (Caleb) Malhotra, (Alberts) Šmits, (Keaton) Verhoeff,” said one scout.

Another director said he has a group of nine players that he could put in any combination, adding Viggo Björck and Daxon Rudolph to the above-mentioned players. “There’s no A’s this year, just a bunch of B+’s.”

“When you’re debating between wingers and centers or defensemen, the wingers can’t just be close; there needs to be some separation,” another NHL executive noted. “I’m not completely convinced that McKenna or Stenberg showed that separation this season from guys like Reid, Verhoeff, Malhotra, etc.”

“McKenna is the most talented player in the draft. But is he the most likely guy to win a championship?” one scouting director asked. “That’s what we’re going to be talking about in meetings.”

“He’s an excellent player,” said a veteran scout. “In the middle of the season, I’m sure you’ll see some highlight-reel plays, and some four- or five-point nights. But when things get tough, if that’s the guy you’re leaning on in the playoffs, our guys would be so excited to play against him. I would take Stenberg, Reid (and) Malhotra ahead of him.”

“He’s going to score a ton in the NHL. He’s special with the puck and on the power play,” said an executive. “My concern is he’s like Artemi Panarin. He’ll get his accolades, but he’ll also be on three to four teams and never make real noise in the playoffs.”

“He’s got to be one of the most unusual top Canadian prospects I’ve seen,” said a scout. “You can’t find him some nights, and he can be so frustrating, but his talent is freakish. He can not really try and still have three points.”

However, drafting a sub-6-foot winger high always carries inherent risk. If the offense doesn’t pop at an elite level, the value plummets quickly.

“If Stenberg doesn’t score a lot, I don’t love his backup game,” cautioned a scout. “If he’s a 50-point, 5-11 wing, it’s not a very valuable piece. For those D like Šmits, Reid, Verhoeff or Carels, even if they’re not running a power play at the end of the day, they can be useful parts of a playoff lineup. There’s more B-game there.”

Because of that limited B-game, several evaluators pushed back on the idea that Stenberg is a lock for the top two.

“The media talks about him and McKenna like they’re the consensus top two guys, but I don’t think teams have it that way,” an executive revealed. “My guess is most teams have one of those guys in their top 2, and then a defenseman or Malhotra. I could honestly see Stenberg get closer to 5 than to 1; he’s not the same type of talent as McKenna.”

Another scout was even more direct: “People talk about this guy like he’s a slam dunk to go 1 or 2. It reminds me of William Eklund’s hype; he was in everyone’s top five, and then he goes 7. When teams get to meetings, and they describe a smaller winger who isn’t dynamic to their GMs, he will start moving down lists.”

Chase Reid​

If you want pure offensive talent from the back end, Reid is the guy.

“Reid is a strange prospect. Two years ago, he got cut from the USHL. Now we’re talking about him in the top three,” said an executive. “But his play has deserved it.”

“He’s a rare defense prospect,” a scout gushed. “His combination of skating, size, skill, brain; I may have seen a handful of guys in the CHL in my time who are this talented.”

“He has elite skill, great feet, he makes an impact all over the ice. He has star potential,” said an executive.

“He has a real chance to become a No. 1 defenseman,” added another scout. “He should be in the conversation with McKenna/Stenberg for sure.”

The knock on Reid is predictable for a highly offensive junior blueliner. “His defending is a concern for me,” said a scout. “He’s gotten a lot better in that area, but he definitely cares more about scoring than he does about playing in his own end.”

“For as much as he’s talked about as this elite puck-mover, Carson Carels and Daxon Rudolph produced more while being much younger,” added another scout.

Carson Carels​

Among the defensemen, Carels has earned widespread praise for his highly translatable, winning profile.

“Carels is an all-day top-four NHL defenseman,” a scouting director said. “Great, fluid skater who is an elite defender, and he has a lot more offense than some give him credit for. He could be the best defenseman in this draft.”

“This is a guy you win with,” a scout agreed. “Such a detailed, smart, all-around defenseman. He skates very well, he lays out his body, he can make plays.”

“There are times I questioned how much offense he has exactly, especially coming into the season,” another scout acknowledged, “but then he had a monster year and elevated in big moments over the season. He’s silenced any doubts you may have had about him.”

Still, early physical maturity can sometimes trick evaluators at the junior level. “I worry he’s a bit maxed out,” cautioned a scouting director. “He competes, he’s hard to play against, but I don’t see the elite brain to continue developing offense at the next level.”

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Good read:

Article isn't free for me.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Good read:

Interesting

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

This hindsight from people who’s literal job it is to scout prospects is baffling.

Neither Celebrini nor Schaefer were sure bet superstars before they were drafted. Some 10 months ago, McKenna had significantly more hype than both of them. So did a guy like Lafreniere. Bedard is the exception.

To go out and say “none of these prospects are Schaefer or Celebrini-caliber” is just dumb because neither were they at the same age.

 

[eco's bones]

This hindsight from people who’s literal job it is to scout prospects is baffling.

Neither Celebrini nor Schaefer were sure bet superstars before they were drafted. Some 10 months ago, McKenna had significantly more hype than both of them. So did a guy like Lafreniere. Bedard is the exception.

To go out and say “none of these prospects are Schaefer or Celebrini-caliber” is just dumb because neither were they at the same age.

Right off the bat they're teenagers and none of them are done developing as players and whatever development any single one of them does in the next several years will be pretty much the tale of the tape as to who really will turn out to be the best. That's really not something any of us can control but the Rangers can exercise some control by getting whoever they pick developed as well as possible.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Usually most years I don't go to all the trouble. About half way through the year I'd given up on the Rangers NHL team and started focusing on the draft more instead. It helped to motivate by having two first rounders. When you don't have even one it's like why knock yourself out?

Villeneuve for at least half of this year had been considered a top 10 pick---he's dropped a bit and that happens to smaller D a lot and pretty much every year. Not saying it's right but it's not unusual. Bleyl on the other hand midway through the year was seen more as a 3rd/middle rounder so he's risen a lot in the second half. He is also going the college route to Michigan State which is as good an idea for him as with Villeneuve. Which one of those two goes first? They seem a lot alike to me. I have no idea.

Well I know one of the people to listen to on draft day and the next day. Thanks for the help!

 

[Levitate]

The obsession with "is this a guy you win with??" is the worst.

Marner was a guy that the conventional wisdom said you couldn't win with. I'm sure I could pull a ton of quotes from this board about not wanting him for that exact reason when he was available.

e: The Athletic's locked articles can still be defeated by just turning your browsers reader mode and reloading the page in reader.

 

[effen]

I'm with them on Stenberg. I just don't see the all-star ability.

Also with them on Carels. Take the locked up top-4 and be thrilled. Felt the same way with Dobson his year.

 

[NickyFotiu]

The obsession with "is this a guy you win with??" is the worst.

Marner was a guy that the conventional wisdom said you couldn't win with. I'm sure I could pull a ton of quotes from this board about not wanting him for that exact reason when he was available.

e: The Athletic's locked articles can still be defeated by just turning your browsers reader mode and reloading the page in reader.

I agree with you but I look at that Marner stuff more as fans and media. I bet most NHL GMs knew he could play. Hence the large contract. With that said sometimes guys have to grow and learn how to be winning players. He may not have been playing the same ages 20-23 as he has from age 24 on.

 

[Levitate]

I agree with you but I look at that Marner stuff more as fans and media. I bet most NHL GMs knew he could play. Hence the large contract. With that said sometimes guys have to grow and learn how to be winning players. He may not have been playing the same ages 20-23 as he has from age 24 on.

yah I just think it's a weird way to look at things because it's this black and white thinking sometimes. Just take the most talented guy in the draft and then surround him with talent and support. Even McDavid can't will the Oilers to a cup by himself, because his team hasn't done enough to build the quality depth around him that you need. Is he a "can't win with him" guy? Unlikely.
So with McKenna, don't rely on him to drag your team to the cup by himself. Surround him with talent and let all these players do their jobs as part of being a winning team.

On top of that I dont' think you can accurately scout or predict who is going to be a "playoff warrior" when they're 17-18. Lotta guys who get drafted because they "do it all, glue guys, you'll want them in the playoffs" never actually show any of that, or are overdrafted because they lack the skills needed to be difference makers but people are blinded by their effort.

e: and 2 with McKenna I have extremely strong suspicions that if he was in the CHL he'd be looked at as a better prospect and people would overlook his faults more.

“People are overthinking this one,” said a scouting director. “His scoring track record is special. His offensive brain and stick are special. He rips up the WHL for years and then rips up college hockey and was a top scorer at the World Juniors.”

 

[GoAwayRempe]

yah I just think it's a weird way to look at things because it's this black and white thinking sometimes. Just take the most talented guy in the draft and then surround him with talent and support. Even McDavid can't will the Oilers to a cup by himself, because his team hasn't done enough to build the quality depth around him that you need. Is he a "can't win with him" guy? Unlikely.
So with McKenna, don't rely on him to drag your team to the cup by himself. Surround him with talent and let all these players do their jobs as part of being a winning team.

On top of that I dont' think you can accurately scout or predict who is going to be a "playoff warrior" when they're 17-18. Lotta guys who get drafted because they "do it all, glue guys, you'll want them in the playoffs" never actually show any of that, or are overdrafted because they lack the skills needed to be difference makers but people are blinded by their effort.

e: and 2 with McKenna I have extremely strong suspicions that if he was in the CHL he'd be looked at as a better prospect and people would overlook his faults more.

On the bolded it doesn't really even apply to McKenna he ripped up the NCAA to the tune of 2+PPG after the WJCs. He needed to make an adjustment and he did. He has other problems that I don't really care about all that much but he fell victim to expectations in that he only performed for half the season like people expected him to from the jump. It shouldn't matter though, he got there eventually.

Way too early to give him the Panarin label.

 

[80shockeywasbuns]

Because the Rangers have other needs besides D. If there’s a clear BPA (if someone they had much higher on their board) then yeah, they should take him regardless. But if there’re a few players in the same range - then whom the Rangers take at 5 will influence whom they take at 26.

Of course. The roster and pipeline suck everywhere and you always go best player available. I was just getting heavy “we might end up with too many puck moving D!” vibes from the guy I replied to

 

[Levitate]

On the bolded it doesn't really even apply to McKenna he ripped up the NCAA to the tune of 2+PPG after the WJCs. He needed to make an adjustment and he did. He has other problems that I don't really care about all that much but he fell victim to expectations in that he only performed for half the season like people expected him to from the jump. It shouldn't matter though, he got there eventually.

Way too early to give him the Panarin label.

Yeah I mean like even the other problems he has probably would get glossed over in the CHL. Like, is that unusual for top offensive players to cherry pick and puck watch at times? But some things stand out more against high levels of competition.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

 

[The Crypto Guy]

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Would love for Klepov to drop to our second 1st round pick.

 

[mike14]

McKeen's final ranking is out MCKEEN'S HOCKEY FINAL 2026 NHL DRAFT RANKING - Top 32 Prospects

Top 10 is:

I still Bjorck is the pick (that we won't make) unless Stenberg drops, and there will be very god defensive prospects available with our second 1st rounder