Bob McKenzie Pre Season 2025 Draft Rankings

[Steve Kournianos]

To be fair he was also the best defender on his team if not top 3 in the entire u18 tournament as an underage, it would be disingenuous to say he’s only at 2 because of one Hlinka. I did not watch the u17WHC but he was apparently excellent there as well

He's definitely at No. 2 because of the Hlinka. The Hlinka was his coming out party to date. It was one of the most dominant performances by a defenseman we've seen in over a decade, if not longer. I never thought his solid U18 WC performance was enough to put him over Ryabkin, Frondell, Misa, Martone, etc. and quick look at nearly all the mainstream rankings prior to the Hlinka had him out of the top five.

What I was talking about is McKenzie's double standard. Frondell can be docked as a 2C for the (false) perception that he isn't an elite point producer and Hagens as a 2C for his size, but Schaefer is a mortal lock for a top pairing despite not delivering elite production in league play and about to miss a chunk of his draft season with mono.

 

[BKarchitect]

The write-ups send mixed messages, assuming because it is trying to recap the thoughts of multiple sources. I don’t think there is much to really get outraged over in terms of pre-season rankings go.

To me this just crystallizes that there is a top 5 tier at the starting blocks and the arrangement of 2-5 after Hagens is questionable and anybody outside that is going to have to force their way into the convo.

Frondell is still at #3. Martone is still at #4. I don’t think these are outrageous slights.

 

[rahad]

So apparently, according to Central Scouting, Hagens is officially 5'11. I suppose they could be rounding up from 5'10.5, but that is his official height.

At what point do size "concerns" go away for most GMs?

please. Before the draft combine, every prospect are always a little bit taller. I'm sure he is more around 5f10.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

please. Before the draft combine, every prospect are always a little bit taller. I'm sure he is more around 5f10.

It’s 10 months before the draft combine. A little bit of an understatement to call it before the draft combine.

 

[wickedwitch]

please. Before the draft combine, every prospect are always a little bit taller. I'm sure he is more around 5f10.

It was a measurement taken by Central Scouting according to the article, so....

 

[coooldude]

It was a measurement taken by Central Scouting according to the article, so....

This is reminding me of the guy who got very aggressive because we all said Buium was probably 6'0" and not 6'2" and and same guy also tried to argue that Sennecke growing from 5'10" to 6'2" wasn't a big deal and probably didn't happen.

 

[Kingpin794]

He's definitely at No. 2 because of the Hlinka. The Hlinka was his coming out party to date. It was one of the most dominant performances by a defenseman we've seen in over a decade, if not longer. I never thought his solid U18 WC performance was enough to put him over Ryabkin, Frondell, Misa, Martone, etc. and quick look at nearly all the mainstream rankings prior to the Hlinka had him out of the top five.

What I was talking about is McKenzie's double standard. Frondell can be docked as a 2C for the (false) perception that he isn't an elite point producer and Hagens as a 2C for his size, but Schaefer is a mortal lock for a top pairing despite not delivering elite production in league play and about to miss a chunk of his draft season with mono.

I wouldn't call it a double standard so much as there's context behind his numbers. Important to remember who Schaefer is playing for when one critiques his offensive output. Stan Butler hockey is a pretty boring if not consistent brand of hockey. Not really known for producing offensive dynamos from the back end, especially if they are 16. His numbers were fine last year and the fact that he was great amongst his peers in his age group should calm down some worries about his production going forward. Erie is going to be a good team this year. He'll produce accordingly.

 

[hockey20000]

sounded like hagens is number 1 but not a star no 1 like bedard or even macklins level

 

[coooldude]

sounded like hagens is number 1 but not a star no 1 like bedard or even macklins level

At the start of the year, yes, this is true. But lots of people think he has higher offensive upside than Macklin. We'll see how he does between Perreault and Leonard... at the very least it's a clean comparison to a Smith-style prospect, although from my viewings Hagens has a bit better defensive game at the same point of development, maybe a bit more tenacious in the OZ, but maybe a bit sloppier on the breakout/in transition.

Macklin was not seen as a great 1OA at the beginning of last year, in fact many said the draft looked quite weak even at the top, other than the 6 D... he built a much stronger reputation as the season went on and solidified 1OA and then solidified "holy shit, franchise C"... so there's still a lot of movement likely with Hagens and others.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

That's exactly what I'm saying. He should be number 2, at worst number 3 behind Schaefer.

Oh look we got a professional here who's definitely seen them all play on a consistent basis.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

Oh look we got a professional here who's definitely seen them all play on a consistent basis.

Yeah it's pretty inconceivable that someone would watch prospects on a forum called "hockey's future"

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

sounded like hagens is number 1 but not a star no 1 like bedard or even macklins level

Celebrini was viewed pretty much like this a year back and then had a great season. There’s still a season to be played and a lot can and will change.

 

[Juxtaposer]

sounded like hagens is number 1 but not a star no 1 like bedard or even macklins level

If Hagens performs to expectations then I would call him a slightly below average 1st overall-caliber player. But he's got a high offensive ceiling, and given his cushy situation between Perreault and Leonard at BC then there's a non-zero chance that he takes another step forward. But he would have to outscore Smith and Celebrini from last year to really impress me. I expect 1.3-1.5 PPG from Hagens, but if he gets to Smith's 1.75 PPG mark then we need to start having some conversations.

 

[Just Linda]

I don't know if this is a controversial opinion or not but...
I'm pretty hyped for this class. I would rather a high first in this draft than a high pick in last year's draft.

I'm assuming that the top 5 will have Hagens, McQueen (size), and Martone (size), quite possibly as the top 3 in that order. Add in Ryabkin and some of the top dmen... I was not this hyped for last year's draft at this stage.

 

[rahad]

It was a measurement taken by Central Scouting according to the article, so....

I'm pretty sure Bedard has ''5ft11', before the draft. Now he is 5ft10.

 

[rahad]

Celebrini was viewed pretty much like this a year back and then had a great season. There’s still a season to be played and a lot can and will change.

I'm not so sure about that. Celebrini is taller and a more complete player. He also played his draft year at 17 years old (born 13 June 2006). James will be 18 in November.

10/10 I take Celebrini over Hagens.

 

[Fantomas]

"just your really good, all-around Russian centre"

An absolutely bizarre quote.

 

[Goodman68]

I thought Mrtka wouldn't get mentioned and would be in the late 20's.

However, you can't teach size. He was also exceptional in the finals loss to Canada at the Hlinka. He was carrying that puck and running Canadian players over. It was very impressive for a man his size. And the writeup does say that Hlinka had a factor here. It also said this is the least accurate list.

Czechs tend to rise slowly and usually aren't on the lists to start... So I thought 20 to 30 and then he'd land between 10 to 20 when all said and done. RHD that is 6'6 checks many boxes. I'm curious how he progresses. Dream is he is the Czech Chara.lol

Mrtka's biggest problem is the speed of skating in a straight line. That will limit him being viewed as a first rounder. Especially if it's going to be a long shift, it's obvious how he's starting to run out of strength.

 

[MichaelFarrell]

sounded like hagens is number 1 but not a star no 1 like bedard or even macklins level

I think Hagens is for sure #1 at this point, but I definitely don’t think it’s as set in stone as it was for Celebrini. He’s a good player that can definitely be a star in the league, but I don’t think it’s certain.

My opinion could definitely change seeing him in college this year though. He is going to have great linemates, so he should have some great production.

 

[L4br3cqu3]

"just your really good, all-around Russian centre"

An absolutely bizarre quote.

Agreed, I know it may seem like a bias, but usually Russian forwards ain't 'all-around' at all.

 

[Fantomas]

Agreed, I know it may seem like a bias, but usually Russian forwards ain't 'all-around' at all.

Not forwards, centres. Russia hasn't developed many all-around centres of quality in quite some time.

This doesn't mean that things aren't changing. They are. Still a weird quote, which is supposed to be by a scout? Geez, I wouldn't listen to him.

 

[Jared Dunn]

As always, McKenzie’s list isn’t a single opinion piece, it’s a formulaic composite from 10 nhl scouts.

Which is to say anything here can only be so ‘bold’ when to get on this list at all takes at least three of ten nhl scouts in agreement and to get that high takes a lot more than that.

His format doesn’t really allow for a single outlier to skew the results. If someone’s that high it’s largely out of a consensus, not someone making an outlier bold pick.

That said, this same format landed Silayev at #4 on his list and he went #10 in reality so maybe this really is a collection of outlier scouts.

There was talk of Anaheim potentially snagging Silayev at 3 right up until draft week. The 2nd D to go in the draft last year was quite literally anybody's guess, hell I doubt anyone had Buium as low as he went

sounded like hagens is number 1 but not a star no 1 like bedard or even macklins level

I think this time last year we were saying Celebrini is #1 but not on Bedard's level and by season's end you had people saying he's going to be better than Bedard

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I'm not so sure about that. Celebrini is taller and a more complete player. He also played his draft year at 17 years old (born 13 June 2006). James will be 18 in November.

10/10 I take Celebrini over Hagens.

Okay, yes, players have strengths and weaknesses.

Hagens is a better playmaker and has a better hockey mind.

When you are born in a year isn't some inherent advantage or disadvantage for being better. Players can't pick when in the year they're born. Good players are born September 16 and good players born September 14. You're just born when you are. It's not a penalty to be being born in November, and certainly shouldn't be a main argument for a player that they happen to be born in June.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The argument isn't that any player should be better based on the month they are born. The argument is that Hagens should be ahead of where Celebrini was at this time last year because he's about 8 months older than Celebrini was at this time last year. They are both 2006 born. Celbrini in June, Hagens in November.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The argument isn't that any player should be better based on the month they are born. The argument is that Hagens should be ahead of where Celebrini was at this time last year because he's about 8 months older than Celebrini was at this time last year. They are both 2006 born. Celbrini in June, Hagens in November.

Not necessarily.

Hagens is younger than Celebrini. Yes, Hagens is older for his draft than Celebrini, but not every player born towards the beginning of a draft is extremely refined and every player towards the end of a draft is extremely unrefined. Celebrini is extremely refined, and while I'd say Hagens probably is too, he's not as physically developed.

There's no reason to factor in when in the year they are born when directly comparing two players.

And this isn't to say to completely disregard the birthday in evaluating players, but that's not really what's going on here. We're comparing two potential 1OA's in different drafts. This isn't like a contextual "well, he's young for his draft, so it's a little more understandable his numbers are lower than you'd want" type of argument you might make when considering whether to draft a player.

Hagens doesn't need to beat "Celebrini by X amount" to be better because he's born earlier in his draft year. He needs to equal Celebrini to be equal and beat him by .00001 to be better. That's how it should work for any player. It becomes discrimination to put some onus on players born the second half of September, October, November, and December to be "X amount better" than those born after the turn of the year.