Tldr: I think he will score points but I think in the first round you should be looking for 200 foot players and I'm unconvinced that he's one.
The wrong questions are always asked. People are always looking for a specific comparison, basically either a top scorer or a guy left in the playoffs. Like, people will say here "oh he couldn't score points in the NHL." And then he will score some points, and then some other segment of the population will say "haha! told you so! he wasn't a bust after all he was an amazing underrated pick should have gone top X picks." Because he doesn't have to be Brayden Point or Alex Debrincat, there are so many short players, he could be Conor Garland or Vinnie Hinostroza or Tyler Johnson or Jonathan Marchessault or Cam Atkinson or Alex Kerfoot or Jesper Bratt or or.
But that doesn't necessarily make the pick worth it. Points are important, but in the modern day an individual's points have become in a way a sort of end all be all. If a player scores even a point per game, which is considered elite, top tier scoring. NHL teams average like 3 goals a game, so if you score one goal, with no added help and providing no detriment to your opponent's scoring abilities, and your opposing teams scores 3 goals, you lose 3-1. Now it's not as simple as that, obviously your teammates can score, you can detriment the other team's scoring abilities. But that's also assuming that you score a point every game, which is rare, most players struggle even to score 2 points in 3 games. There are a lot of players who score enough to make themselves look good, but don't do enough on the ice to make their team succeed. Particularly if you earn this point-scoring reputation, and you start getting more and more minutes. If you're playing around 20 minutes a game, a third of a game, and you score one point a game, when your team is expect to score 3 goals a game, you're not really increasing your team's expected goal totals. Even though, again, PPG is always seen as this mecca of scoring. And usually if someone is PPG, they absolutely are increasing their team's total expected goals, but it's not necessarily the case.
There's so much you can do with time on ice. Time on ice is an extremely valuable resource, if you have 20 minutes on the ice and more often than not when given 20 minutes, you can keep the opposing team out of the net for your third of the game, that's amazing, because suddenly the opposing team's expected goals (again, very roughly tabulated) decreased from 3 to 2. You can do things to increase the chances of your teammates scoring points even if you don't get scoring credit, things like winning battles for pucks, forechecking hard, protecting the puck long enough to get off quality passes, screening the goaltender on your teammates shots, etc. Even winning faceoffs, all these things can be really crucial. And you can even increase the chances of your teammates scoring who aren't even on the ice with you, by say successfully moving the puck out of your own zone, into the opposing zone, getting a stoppage and an offensive zone faceoff for your next line. All these things can be summarized as having a "200 foot game", but I think it can be hard to evaluate, with some shorter players in particular if they get like 1 or 2 neat poke checks every game people will say "he is great defensively." Well...
With smaller players it simply is harder to have the same amount of impact across other areas. Obviously Stankoven has a wicked shot, nice release, he's agile, he can handle the puck well. But all those things are mostly things that benefit him specifically. And at the highest level there are guys designed, whose sole purpose is making it harder for him to use those qualities in key moments. And there are many players in the league against whom, you probably can't stop them from scoring some points but you're ok if they do because one person won't score enough to turn the tide of a series. From what I've seen (I have no special access that others don't have on YT), he doesn't really impact those other areas of the game. Obviously, things can change, players can improve. But if he doesn't, what's the best case scenario? He scores enough points to earn himself a big contract but against teams where we really have to scratch and claw for every inch of advantage, does he affect the eventual outcome? I think ideally for first rounders you don't have to ask that question. Pure offense guys are necessary and can be valuable, but pretty much every year we see top scoring guys finish without the team accolades that they want. It's not simply the case that you draft this guy, he puts up some points and it was a great pick.
