F James Hagens - Boston College, NCAA (2025 Draft)

[SnowblindNYR]

I know it's early and I'm guessing he plays different, less well rounded game but is he considered a better prospect than Celebrini?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I know it's early and I'm guessing he plays different, less well rounded game but is he considered a better prospect than Celebrini?

I don't find him less well-rounded than Celebrini. He's between .5 and 1.5 inches shorter, so of course that means he's worse defensively, but both players are very good with defensive details without being like overwhelming physical presences that can dominate defensively because they're the size of Anze Kopitar (Craig Button thinks Hagens is comparable to Kopitar for some reason though).

He'll be in the same range overall as Celebrini. A little better. A little worse. Still to be decided. He's more of a playmaker than Celebrini. Probably not as fast or as good of a shot, but better edges and more cerebral. Both players are pretty much good at everything though, and their main issues are that they don't have the overwhelming one tool that projects like Bedard's shot or McDavid's skating or Matthews sense around the net and they're ever so slightly undersized for a forward.

 

[Intangir]

I don't find him less well-rounded than Celebrini. He's between .5 and 1.5 inches shorter, so of course that means he's worse defensively, but both players are very good with defensive details without being like overwhelming physical presences that can dominate defensively because they're the size of Anze Kopitar (Craig Button thinks Hagens is comparable to Kopitar for some reason though).

He'll be in the same range overall as Celebrini. A little better. A little worse. Still to be decided. He's more of a playmaker than Celebrini. Probably not as fast or as good of a shot, but better edges and more cerebral. Both players are pretty much good at everything though, and their main issues are that they don't have the overwhelming one tool that projects like Bedard's shot or McDavid's skating or Matthews sense around the net and they're ever so slightly undersized for a forward.

With all due respects, I disagree with your take.

I watched all of Celebrini's games for BU last season whilst keeping an eye on Hutson (and was hoping Montreal would get him but we lucked-out and still managed to nab Demidov so I can't complain), and what I saw for that whole season trumps the eye test for Hagens so far at BC.

The main differences that I see between Celebrini and Hagens, is mainly when it comes to reads on the ice and the respective quality of their toolsets as offensive players.

First and foremost, I actually think that Celebrini processes the game at a higher level than Hagens. To me, Celebrini in his draft year showed better and quicker decisions when under pressure with the puck on his stick than Hagens has showed so far, plain and simple.

Another aspect of the game where I think that Celebrini holds a sizable advantage over Hagens in is with pure puck-handling skills as well as with his greater creativity with the puck when it comes to challenging defenders 1-on-1.

Then we look at skating, and I'd give another small nod there to Celebrini (because of better acceleration and top speed) though Hagens' agility and edgework would be ever-so-slightly superior.

Play-making wise, I'd tend to agree with you and give the nod to Hagens overall considering the higher consistency with which he finds his teammates and his slightly better sense of space/timing for his passes.

Shot-wise, I'd say Celebrini is als better there, especially when it comes to his release compared to Hagens.

Defensively I'd agree that both Celebrini in his draft year and Hagens would at this point be pretty much a "wash" though I also think Celebrini handled the physical play and boxing his man out a tiny smidge better last year than Hagens has done so far this season.

Transition-wise, I'd say that Celebrini in his draft year showed a greater ability to enter the zone with possession even under duress and tight cheking, owing to what I consider to be better handling skills and quicker reads on defenders.

Off-puck offensive play, I'd also say that Celebrini was a bit better in his draft year with his positioning and slightly better board work.

So yeah, to put it simply I think Celebrini was quite a bit better as a prospect last year than Hagens is this time around.

And I'd actually have Hagens closer to Michael Misa than to Celebrini when we purely evaluate their tools as propects.

I prefer Martone over Hagens in this draft. But if Celebrini was available in this year's draft, taking only his draft year into consideration, he'd be the one I'd give the "1OA nod" to over Martone.

 

[Wieters]

Important to note that Hagens is still only seven games into his NCAA career and was 17 years old until today. BC likely has over 30 more games to go in their season, the games will progressively ramp up in intensity, and Hagens will settle in with his linemates. Not that we can't draw certain conclusions yet, but I do think the most meaningful tape on Hagens will come in the next few months.

 

[scoutman1]

With all due respects, I disagree with your take.

I watched all of Celebrini's games for BU last season whils keeping an eye on Hutson (and was hoping Montreal would get him but we lucked-out and still managed to nab Demidov so I can't complain), and what I saw for that whole season trumps the eye test for Hagens so far at BC.

The main differences that I see between Celebrini and Hagens, is mainly when it comes to reads on the ice and the respective quality of their toolsets as offensive players.

First and foremost, I actually think that Celebrini processes the game at a higher level than Hagens. To me, Celebrini in his draft year showed better and quicker decisions when under pressure with the puck on his stick than Hagens has showed so far, plain and simple.

Another aspect of the game where I think that Celebrini holds a sizable advantage over Hagens in is with pure puck-handling skills as well as with his greater creativity with the puck when it comes to challenging defenders 1-on-1.

Then we look at skating, and I'd give another small nod there to Celebrini (because of better acceleration and top speed) though Hagens' agility and edgework would be ever-so-slightly superior.

Play-making wise, I'd tend to agree with you and give the nod to Hagens overall considering the higher consistency with which he finds his teammates and his slightly better sense of space/timing for his passes.

Shot-wise, I'd say Celebrini is als better there, especially when it comes to his release compared to Hagens.

Defensively I'd agree that both Celebrini in his draft year and Hagens would at this point be pretty much a "wash" though I also think Celebrini handled the physical play and boxing his man out a tiny smidge better last year than Hagens has done so far this season.

Transition-wise, I'd say that Celebrini in his draft year showed a greater ability to enter the zone with possession even under duress and tight cheking, owing to what I consider to be better handling skills and quicker reads on defenders.

Off-puck offensive play, I'd also say that Celebrini was a bit better in his draft year with his positioning and slightly better board work.

So yeah, to put it simply I think Celebrini was quite a bit better as a prospect last year than Hagens is this time around.

And I'd actually have Hagens closer to Michael Misa than to Celebrini when we purely evaluate their tools as propects.

I prefer Martone over Hagens in this draft. But if Celebrini was available in this year's draft, taking only his draft year into consideration, he'd be the one I'd give the "1OA nod" to over Martone.

all in all you are comparing an entire season of Celebrini to just a few games to start the year with Hagens...to really compare this you really have to wait till the season ends because you might be talking a lot different at the end of the year.

 

[Intangir]

all in all you are comparing an entire season of Celebrini to just a few games to start the year with Hagens...to really compare this you really have to wait till the season ends because you might be talking a lot different at the end of the year.

Yes, but I watched Celebrini early least season and I still think he was better then, while being 7 months younger and on a lesser offensive team than BC this year.

But we will see how Hagens progresses through the year.

 

[newmanager]

Important to note that Hagens is still only seven games into his NCAA career and was 17 years old until today. BC likely has over 30 more games to go in their season, the games will progressively ramp up in intensity, and Hagens will settle in with his linemates. Not that we can't draw certain conclusions yet, but I do think the most meaningful tape on Hagens will come in the next few months.

We will most certainly get a better read on Hagens potential after the season is over but we also must remember that Hagens is going to be playing over 30 games of his freshman season at the age of 18 whereas Celebrini played his entire freshman season at the age of 17.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It seems to me that the "this player is older or younger than that player" type of comparison when we are literally just splitting hairs over what time of year they are born is pretty useless, and if you want to use this topic for or against a player it shouldn't be in comparison to other players (some are always going to come out winners and others losers by being born at the time of year they were). It should be an additional layer to assessing them on their own merits. That way there's actual agency for players, and it's not judging them on less or more desirable immutable characteristics that might or might not actually hold any real value towards if they will turn into better players.

 

[JotAlan]

What I find amazing about Hagens' start is that he hasn't exploded yet and is already quietly dominating. This reminds me a little of Gretzky, he skates to nowhere, doesn't pass to anyone and suddenly he scores

 

[Wieters]

We will most certainly get a better read on Hagens potential after the season is over but we also must remember that Hagens is going to be playing over 30 games of his freshman season at the age of 18 whereas Celebrini played his entire freshman season at the age of 17.

The point was just that we don't have a body of work from Hagens by which to compare him to Celebrini yet. Again not to discourage conversation, but some of the discussion strikes me less about per-shift consistency and more about the players at their best. And in that sense, we don't have nearly as many highlights to draw from for Hagens as we do with Celebrini simply due to the number of NCAA games played, so naturally it will seem like Celebrini has flashed more than Hagens.

It's also worth pointing out that Hagens is still quite young for the level himself, so I don't think his age can be used against him in any context other than perhaps when comparing him to Celebrini, who was an outlier as far as how young he was.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Hagens is no better or worse than Celebrini, and I really don't understand how the narrative that Celebrini was a superior draft prospect came about. There is no evidence to prove it at this point, and both the eye test and the stats back up the reality that they are equals until proven otherwise.

They often met head-to-head in the USHL with no tangible result proving Player X was better than Player Y. In fact, the H2H production in 2022-23 was almost identical, as Celebrini had 10 goals and 16 points in seven games against the NTDP and Hagens had 10 assists and 14 points, all while Hagens was a draft-2 while Celebrini was a draft-1.

Celebrini as a draft-1 had 2 pts in 4 games at the WU17HC; Hagens had 21 in 7 as a draft-2

Celebrini as a draft-1 had 15 points in 7 U18 WC games; Hagens as a draft-1 had 22 in 7.

The only relevant differences to date beyond Celebrini being an inch taller are that BC has had a tougher schedule to start this season than BU and Celebrini had in 2023-24, and that the Terriers didn't have elite wingers on Perreault's or Leonard's level for Celebrini or Pandolfo to defer to. Celebrini was BU's top forward the second he showed up, practically by default. That is not the case with Hagens and BC. Even still, Celebrini had 11 points in his first 6 games and Hagens has 10 points in his first six.

As far as scoring is concerned, Hagens easily -- EASILY -- could have seven or eight more points if Leonard wasn't so snakebitten and goalies weren't making 10-bell saves on Hagens. In the SCSU series, he created at least four breakaways or 2-on-1s that weren't converted, two of which from high-flip passes from deep in his own end.

Hagens is an electrifying skater with an elite IQ, elite vision, elite effort, and elite stickhandling. He is a strong two-way player who engages physically and supports the breakout below the circles. The only area he needs to work on is faceoffs. His shot power and release are equal to Celebrini but he looks to pass from distance, although BC already sets him up in the right circle as the PP1 one-timer option with Leonard in front and Perreault at the point.

Being a late birthday is irrelevant. Ovechkin, Kane, Makar, Matthews, Hedman, Tavares, Panarin, Draisaitl, both Tkachuks, Quinn Hughes, Eichel, Reinhart, et. al were all late birthdays.

 

[newmanager]

It seems to me that the "this player is older or younger than that player" type of comparison when we are literally just splitting hairs over what time of year they are born is pretty useless, and if you want to use this topic for or against a player it shouldn't be in comparison to other players (some are always going to come out winners and others losers by being born at the time of year they were). It should be an additional layer to assessing them on their own merits. That way there's actual agency for players, and it's not judging them on less or more desirable immutable characteristics that might or might not actually hold any real value towards if they will turn into better players.

No. All these kids grow up playing with and against kids born the same year as themselves. When we assess these kids we use December 31st as the cutoff Date. September 15 only applies to the NHL draft eligibility and it has no impact whatsoever on how they're grouped outside of NHL. We've always compared Porter Martone, Roger McQueen, Malcolm Spence, Tij Iginla, Macklin Celebrini etc on their accomplishments and potential because they have the common birth year and played in the same leagues and tourneys and all entered the program of excellence at the same time. Hagens has the same birth year as they do.
We also compare Gavin McKenna to Michael Misa, Ryan Roobroeck, etc because they play in the same leagues and tourneys and have the same birth year regardless of the fact McKenna and Roobroeck get drafted a year later than Misa. Their junior eligibility expires at the same time. We shouldn't compare one prospect's last year of WJC eligibility to another's second last year of WJC eligibility just because of the NHL draft specs.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

I know it's early and I'm guessing he plays different, less well rounded game but is he considered a better prospect than Celebrini?

They’re equal. Both franchise-caliber, dual-threat centers. Celebrini has an inch on him but it’s not like Hagens gets outworked or outmuscled. His game is incredibly well-rounded — intense competitor, physical when necessary, abrasive and uses stick to send a message, stands up for himself and teammates, defensively responsible, clutch, you name it. Faceoffs have improved but for now still a minor fix. I anticipated the media would sharpshoot him since he’s American, so I’ve watched every game since the WJSS and he’s never once been disappointing, flawed, or unproductive. He’s easily one of best pure passers we’ve seen among recent consensus top picks, especially in the defensive zone and creating breakouts. It looks like he’ll permanently center Leonard and Perreault so the points should start piling up.

TBH, I think I’m done watching him. Seen enough against top NCAA and INTL competition over a season-plus to confidently say he’s a lock to be a quality No. 1C in the NHL.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

No. All these kids grow up playing with and against kids born the same year as themselves. When we assess these kids we use December 31st as the cutoff Date. September 15 only applies to the NHL draft eligibility and it has no impact whatsoever on how they're grouped outside of NHL. We've always compared Porter Martone, Roger McQueen, Malcolm Spence, Tij Iginla, Macklin Celebrini etc on their accomplishments and potential because they have the common birth year and played in the same leagues and tourneys and all entered the program of excellence at the same time. Hagens has the same birth year as they do.
We also compare Gavin McKenna to Michael Misa, Ryan Roobroeck, etc because they play in the same leagues and tourneys and have the same birth year regardless of the fact McKenna and Roobroeck get drafted a year later than Misa. Their junior eligibility expires at the same time. We shouldn't compare one prospect's last year of WJC eligibility to another's second last year of WJC eligibility just because of the NHL draft specs.

The issue is comparing players born at different times of the year. Some players are going to come out as winners and others as losers due to something they have zero control over.

Do you have some actual mathematic formula for comparing them or is it just that the players born June 1-September 15 become winners and those born September 16-December 31 are losers? Because that’s what this argument amounts to.

My belief is that it should be a talking point, but not in a way of comparing players. It should be used to consider players on their own merits.

If you get a situation like Jack Quinn, who was 4 days too young for the 2019 draft, it’s fair to ask about his age. He would’ve been a late round pick if he was a few days older. Pops off with an amazing draft season. But at the same time, he’s since shown that he deserved his draft slot, so being old for your draft and popping off at the right time in relation to the draft doesn’t actually always prove a cautionary tale.

I think of an opposite example of how to use it like Filip Chytil. Was talked about as maybe a 2nd or 3rd rounder, at best, for much of his draft season. Yet, his play took an upward turn throughout the season. Still wasn’t putting up like obvious first round accomplishments, but scouts saw the arc his progression was on and he kept rising. His September 5th birthday is another feather in that cap. Not to say it made him better or worse, but it’s a data point to prove the theory that he was a deserved riser and picking him higher than people thought would age well. In hindsight, this has worked out. He was underdrafted. This is exactly how you use the birthdate of a player correctly.

 

[Mathieukferland]

I anticipated the media would sharpshoot him since he’s American,

I’ve already stated my opinion on Celebrini and Hagens in another thread so I won’t reiterate that here.

However I think between this and the scheduling complaints in the summer you seem think there’s a TSN/Hockey Canada conspiracy, which I can assure you if you listened to the initial McKenzie draft show there wasn’t, they were all very complimentary of his game and I think 9 of the 10 first place votes went to him, and there was no sharpshooting at all

 

[coooldude]

The issue is comparing players born at different times of the year. Some players are going to come out as winners and others as losers due to something they have zero control over.

Do you have some actual mathematic formula for comparing them or is it just that the players born June 1-September 15 become winners and those born September 16-December 31 are losers? Because that’s what this argument amounts to.

My belief is that it should be a talking point, but not in a way of comparing players. It should be used to consider players on their own merits.

If you get a situation like Jack Quinn, who was 4 days too young for the 2019 draft, it’s fair to ask about his age. He would’ve been a late round pick if he was a few days older. Pops off with an amazing draft season. But at the same time, he’s since shown that he deserved his draft slot, so being old for your draft and popping off at the right time in relation to the draft doesn’t actually always prove a cautionary tale.

I think of an opposite example of how to use it like Filip Chytil. Was talked about as maybe a 2nd or 3rd rounder, at best, for much of his draft season. Yet, his play took an upward turn throughout the season. Still wasn’t putting up like obvious first round accomplishments, but scouts saw the arc his progression was on and he kept rising. His September 5th birthday is another feather in that cap. Not to say it made him better or worse, but it’s a data point to prove the theory that he was a deserved riser and picking him higher than people thought would age well. In hindsight, this has worked out. He was underdrafted. This is exactly how you use the birthdate of a player correctly.

I generally agree. Age is a factor in player development curves, that's undeniable. And it could be a talking point in, e.g., a comparison between one of the youngest players and one of the oldest players in a draft class. However, it's only one factor in the development curve. You also have to consider the obvious trajectory in production, ice time, roles being played on team, physical maturity, mental maturity, decision making, skill development, etc etc etc alongside just pure age.

To bring it back to the comparison at hand (I'm a biased actor here), I think it's very impressive that Celebrini had the season he had as one of the younger players in the draft class. It implies that not only is he performing that well at that age, but that he also has the better part of a year to keep developing to catch up to where the average "curve" might have him otherwise. You can compare Hagens and Celebrini and say "Celebrini was younger," and yes -- but also, more important are probably other factors. Hagens, for example, may be physically less mature, so even though he's older, he might have a lot more weight to gain and even more explosiveness to add. Or maybe not - I don't know his physical situation as well. And on-ice differences are probably still more important.

tl;dr at a population level, all other things equal, younger players probably will develop more than older players, but on an individual level it's hard to argue it's a very top factor in evaluation.

 

[Dempsey]

After tracking prospects and drafting them in keeper leagues, and keeping notes to learn how to better do this for the last 25 years, what I've come up with is that if a player is an "older" birthday between Sept 15 and Dec 31 I sort of take their stats with a grain of salt, or in other words I expect them to produce a little more. If two players are playing in the OHL and one is in his third season in the league he has an advantage over the guy who's in his second season in the league. He's learned to figure it out and get comfortable and learn how to succeed not necessarily through having more skill but just familiarity with the league. Conversely, if a player is a rookie in their league in their draft year (maybe they played Jr A the year prior) and they produced I see that as a positive based on the fact they didn't have that year prior to adjust and get used to the league. This (as well as the fact he had the frame but was really skinny) is why I was so high on Mark Scheifele in his draft year. I know this doesn't completely correlate with the Hagens/Celebrini scenario but my point stands that I expect Hagens to put up more points as an older birthday.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I generally agree. Age is a factor in player development curves, that's undeniable. And it could be a talking point in, e.g., a comparison between one of the youngest players and one of the oldest players in a draft class. However, it's only one factor in the development curve. You also have to consider the obvious trajectory in production, ice time, roles being played on team, physical maturity, mental maturity, decision making, skill development, etc etc etc alongside just pure age.

To bring it back to the comparison at hand (I'm a biased actor here), I think it's very impressive that Celebrini had the season he had as one of the younger players in the draft class. It implies that not only is he performing that well at that age, but that he also has the better part of a year to keep developing to catch up to where the average "curve" might have him otherwise. You can compare Hagens and Celebrini and say "Celebrini was younger," and yes -- but also, more important are probably other factors. Hagens, for example, may be physically less mature, so even though he's older, he might have a lot more weight to gain and even more explosiveness to add. Or maybe not - I don't know his physical situation as well. And on-ice differences are probably still more important.

tl;dr at a population level, all other things equal, younger players probably will develop more than older players, but on an individual level it's hard to argue it's a very top factor in evaluation.

Yeah, I think it's definitely a feather in Celebrini's cap of what he's accomplished.

Where I can't agree is when people say "Hagens needs to score X amount more to be better because Celebrini has the age edge."

To me, that's too simplistic of a way to use it for the reasons you mention. I don't think we yet have a good way to calculate how much it matters, so it's better to use it as a "minor consideration" for or against certain players when you aren't sure of what you're looking at when you put together the formula that includes the other considerations as opposed to a major part of the formula of how to evaluate players and compare players.

And saying that that, Celebrini may be the better prospect. But I don't think it's due to his younger age for his draft or Hagen's older age for his draft. That really shouldn't be part of this specific discussion.

 

[jj cale]

I’ve already stated my opinion on Celebrini and Hagens in another thread so I won’t reiterate that here.

However I think between this and the scheduling complaints in the summer you seem think there’s a TSN/Hockey Canada conspiracy, which I can assure you if you listened to the initial McKenzie draft show there wasn’t, they were all very complimentary of his game and I think 9 of the 10 first place votes went to him, and there was no sharpshooting at all

TSN hypes American players and programs like crazy.....it drives me nuts actually. I've been ragging on them about that on here for years now. It's like their 2nd team. Quite sickening to be perfectly honest.

No way does that happen the other way around in a million years, so I can't see why he would think that way,

 

[frontsfan67]

Who is Hagens compared to?? I’ve heard he is great defensively from people on here and then I just saw an article that said he tries to emulate Patrick Kane. And Patrick Kane and defence don’t mix lol.

 

[seafoam]

Who is Hagens compared to?? I’ve heard he is great defensively from people on here and then I just saw an article that said he tries to emulate Patrick Kane. And Patrick Kane and defence don’t mix lol.

I haven't seen much but from what I have heard/read a left handed Pat LaFontaine or Sebastian Aho?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Who is Hagens compared to?? I’ve heard he is great defensively from people on here and then I just saw an article that said he tries to emulate Patrick Kane. And Patrick Kane and defence don’t mix lol.

I think both can be true. He tries to emulate Kane with the puck, but he also tries to play some defense. Whether he can reach Kane's level with the puck in his career is a fair question. I don't think it's any type of certainty.

To me someone like Brayden Point with elements of Jack Hughes is the best comparison. The Aho one isn't bad. I could see that a little bit. Maybe throw in a dash of Kane as well.