HockeyProspect.com Top 32 for 2025 Draft - November 25th 2024

[JeromeHP]

I like seeing Carbonneau this high, have been keeping tabs on him for awhile.

Two questions for @Mark Edwards and @JeromeHP --

1) Since you guys were high on Lindstrom last year, why are you not similarly as high on McQueen?

2) What do you think of Carbonneau's teammate, Mateo Nobert?

1- We saw Lindstrom with a better goal-scoring potential than McQueen and Lindstrom played a more mean physical game than McQueen. I am looking forward to seeing McQueen back in action, there are many unanswered questions about him at this point with the low viewings we have of him this season.

2- I have watched him with Carbonneau but I didn't see a guy who I should focus on for this list. He didn't have a good season last year but he's doing much better so far. I'll focus on him a lot more in the 2nd half of the season. This first list is like a race, you're trying to see as many players as possible before the November list and you can miss some guys. I saw him as something similar to Alexandre Blais of Rimouski (Anaheim 4th rounder last June) but I'm not sure yet if I like him better than Blais. Probably a better version than Desruisseaux of Chicoutimi who went undrafted last season.

 

[ConnorMcMullet]

Totally agree, but my thoughts are if you are going to have players ridiculously high to the point that it is a hot take, you better hit on those IMHO.

So every list that differs from the consensus must be better than it?

The fact that HP’s lists typically stray further from the consensus than other outlets is a testament to the work they do themselves. Most lists online regurgitate the same takes. GM’s lists likely look a lot more like HP’s, and vary a lot more than most fans would expect.

I’m a little surprised by @Pavel Buchnevich’s comments, you’re someone who puts in the work yourself and I’d say your lists are usually full of what would be considered hot takes. I respect your opinions because I know they are based on your own evaluations and not whatever is already out there. HP deserves the same respect IMO, especially since their lists have aged comparatively well more often than not.

 

[S E P H]

So every list that differs from the consensus must be better than it?

The fact that HP’s lists typically stray further from the consensus than other outlets is a testament to the work they do themselves. Most lists online regurgitate the same takes. GM’s lists likely look a lot more like HP’s, and vary a lot more than most fans would expect.

I’m a little surprised by @Pavel Buchnevich’s comments, you’re someone who puts in the work yourself and I’d say your lists are usually full of what would be considered hot takes. I respect your opinions because I know they are based on your own evaluations and not whatever is already out there. HP deserves the same respect IMO, especially since their lists have aged comparatively well more often than not.

I subject myself to the same opinions and yes I have absolutely whiffed on some of my hot takes as well. Serron Noel was probably my worst, I saw a powerforward there and he turned up to be an ECHL dud, the injuries didn't help though.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I was being sarcastic if you couldnt pick up on it. Kinda ironic coming from someone who literally only posts in NCAA player's threads lol.

The first people to move off of Wright being 1st in his draft year were probably being totally ridiculous too!

Didnt you see he out produced a 16 year old McDavid and crushed the U18s????

I'll forever laugh at people trying to gatekeep other people's opinions and not following the "consensus".

Hagens is second in the NCAA in assists as like the second youngest player in the league. How is he having a season comparable to Shane Wright?

 

[Wheatens]

Hagens is second in the NCAA in assists as like the second youngest player in the league. How is he having a season comparable to Shane Wright?

Huh? He is not comparing Wright's season to Hagens' season or anything like that. Just a recent example of the consensus #1 player coming into his draft year, losing that ranking to a different player during their draft year and how the earliest people to make that call were perhaps derided for their opinion. Whether that opinion is right or wrong, who knows?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Huh? He is not comparing Wright's season to Hagens' season or anything like that. Just a recent example of the consensus #1 player coming into his draft year, losing that ranking to a different player during their draft year and how the earliest people to make that call were perhaps derided for their opinion.

Maybe let him speak for himself on what he meant because there's no reason to bring up an example of Wright in a discussion about Hagens.

You can say that other players might overtake him without trying to use a drastic example of a player who is seen as having lost the 1OA by having a weak draft season.

 

[Peasy]

Maybe let him speak for himself on what he meant because there's no reason to bring up an example of Wright in a discussion about Hagens.

You can say that other players might overtake him without trying to use a drastic example of a player who is seen as having lost the 1OA by having a weak draft season.

Nah he explained exactly what I meant.

Not every player that is expected to go first overall before their draft year ends up still going first overall, even if there seems like such a massive gap before the start of the season (i know you know this cause youre an active poster on this board).

People shouldn't have a freak out just because others see things differently.

If you'd actually take the time to listen to some of brad and Jerome's content, you'd know that they always mention about trying to block out what the consensus is, and rank players purely based on their own opinions.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Hagens is second in the NCAA in assists as like the second youngest player in the league. How is he having a season comparable to Shane Wright?

Interesting stat choice! He also has 1 goal. One! He's also not the 2cnd youngest player in the league. That would be Cullen Potter, who has 3 goals. I get that it's harder to score in the NCAA as an 18 year old than the CHL but let's not pretend Hagens' stats are working in his favor atp.
I first heard of this guy 10 minutes ago.(Ok maybe last year, not exactly getting a lot of publicity) He's the same age as Hagens, Ncaa, and has 2 goals:: Shane Vansaghi - Stats, Contract, Salary & More

 

[gothegr8]

Having the consensus 1 at 3? Having a consensus top 4 at 5? Having a guy at 6 that hasn’t even been making top 15’s yet?

Of course it is.

I seriously couldn't care less about consensus lol they are by far the best in the business. I often see it the same way as they do.

 

[rahad]

Right there with them on Schaefer and Misa. My two favorite guys this year. Don't need a LD in Chicago in the slightest but if we do end up winning the lottery again, I have a hard time passing on him this year. Feel like he's been the best player.

Yeah. Sometime you need luck to have both BPA and team need. The Habs need a RHD and a elite center. If Schaefer is the best player available. They should probably draft him and trade a player for need after.

This year has a solid top 5.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Interesting stat choice! He also has 1 goal. One! He's also not the 2cnd youngest player in the league. That would be Cullen Potter, who has 3 goals. I get that it's harder to score in the NCAA as an 18 year old than the CHL but let's not pretend Hagens' stats are working in his favor atp.
I first heard of this guy 10 minutes ago.(Ok maybe last year, not exactly getting a lot of publicity) He's the same age as Hagens, Ncaa, and has 2 goals:: Shane Vansaghi - Stats, Contract, Salary & More

Yes, he has 1 goal because finishing luck is random. Puck sometimes go in and sometimes not go in.

He should have between 6 and 8 goals with a normal shooting percentage for his acumen. When players have a lack of goals the first thing you should do is look at their shooting percentage, and if low then you give them a certain number of goals that would equate to an average shooting percentage, and then reassess.

If you normalize his shooting percentage, he’d either be 2nd or 3rd in NCAA in points.

He has 38 shots through 12 games, which is a good rate. Gabe Perreault, for instance on the same team through 12 games, has 34.

Any fan who posts on a hockey message board should understand all of this.

I can’t believe I had to waste time explaining this.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

I haven't seen most of these players, but from what I have seen, IMO 1 of Cameron Reid or Luca Romano (I lean more toward Reid but Romano has a strong trajectory atm) are 1st round talents (somewhere between 20-30 in a average-good draft).

I'm not as high on Schaefer, but most of my viewings are from last year (he was very good, but not fantastic) and, at least statistically, he's taken a massive step forward so I look forward to seeing him this season.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

So he's scored 1 goal though right?
Of course I understand shooting %, I also understand cherry picking stats to make a case for your guy. Which is exactly what you're doing. He has a lot of assists, great! Wonder who his line-mates are? He must be really elevating them. He's really young! (for the Ncaa) but actually one of the older draft eligibles. Meanwhile Schaefer doesn't turn 18 until a month before next year's training camps.
Let us know when those shots start going in the net, I know you will.
Meanwhile other guys are lighting it up Right NOW!
.

 

[Quinnisinoverhishead]

I can see why people who watch highlights/box scores and put together prospect power rankings based on those reactions would downgrade Hagens, but I would be surprised if NHL front offices who have been sending scouts to watch Hagens' games in person for years have him outside of their top two. If they had Hagens at the top of their board before the season started, then I can't see him having been moved out of that spot since he hasn't done anything disqualifying. He is the same player he has always been, and my guess is that that is a player front offices will rate over the other guys in discussion unless something drastic were to change.

Impossible to watch every OHL and NCAA hockey game. No average fan does that. But I did catch a couple of the Saginaw Spirit games last year and saw the BC vs Providence game last week. Not even comparable players at this juncture. You notice Misa every shift. Hagens is the third best player on his line today. That is no slight at him... as he will most likely be better than Leonard and Perrault when he is 19. Factor in Misa is a year younger...
Comical that anyone puts Hagens ahead of Misa at this point.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

So he's scored 1 goal though right?
Of course I understand shooting %, I also understand cherry picking stats to make a case for your guy. Which is exactly what you're doing. He has a lot of assists, great! Wonder who his line-mates are? He must be really elevating them. He's really young! (for the Ncaa) but actually one of the older draft eligibles. Meanwhile Schaefer doesn't turn 18 until a month before next year's training camps.
Let us know when those shots start going in the net, I know you will.
Meanwhile other guys are lighting it up Right NOW!
.

I have nothing to cherry pick. Hagens has been a top 10 player in college hockey this year. His play speaks for itself.

You are the one that is trying to act like his goal scoring is a problem.

 

[Wieters]

Impossible to watch every OHL and NCAA hockey game. No average fan does that. But I did catch a couple of the Saginaw Spirit games last year and saw the BC vs Providence game last week. Not even comparable players at this juncture. You notice Misa every shift. Hagens is the third best player on his line today. That is no slight at him... as he will most likely be better than Leonard and Perrault when he is 19. Factor in Misa is a year younger...
Comical that anyone puts Hagens ahead of Misa at this point.

NHL front offices don't rank prospects exclusively based on how they're performing most recently. That is more akin to online power rankings, which are reactionary. That's fine if you want to do that, but an actual NHL draft board isn't put together that way. These players have been scouted by front offices for years by this point and so there would need to be significant changes to disrupt the mountains of preexisting evidence they're drawing from. I don't think what you're referencing rises to the level of being significant enough to change draft boards.

 

[Frk It]

He should have between 6 and 8 goals with a normal shooting percentage for his acumen. When players have a lack of goals the first thing you should do is look at their shooting percentage, and if low then you give them a certain number of goals that would equate to an average shooting percentage, and then reassess.

Do you also give QB’s more yards with a low completion % and basketball players more points with a low FG %?

 

[Wieters]

Do you also give QB’s more yards with low completion %’s and basketball players more points with low FG %?

I think the better analogy is a baseball position player's expected on base percentage/batting average/slugging percentage versus actual OBP/BA/SLG. And in that case, yes, baseball has embraced advanced metrics to the point that players are largely given credit for the expected values since it is understood that there is an element of randomness to whether the baseball drops into play or is caught.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I have nothing to cherry pick. Hagens has been a top 10 player in college hockey this year. His play speaks for itself.

You are the one that is trying to act like his goal scoring is a problem.

It will be if he doesn't pick it up. A problem for a #1 OA pick i mean. You think if he ends the year with 3 or 4 goals it won't be a massive talking point when debating the #1 OA? Of course it will be. Thus why's it's a problem for him to have 1 goal so far. I'm sure he'll start scoring though. Point being it's a legit debate who's #1 right now. Whether you like it or not.

 

[Frk It]

I think the better analogy is a baseball position player's expected on base percentage/batting average/slugging percentage versus actual OBP/BA/SLG. And in that case, yes, baseball has embraced advanced metrics to the point that players are largely given credit for the expected values since it is understood that there is an element of randomness to whether the baseball drops into play or is caught.

Yeah but like... finishing is a skill. The ability to finish or shoot the puck greatly influences shooting %. And a player having a down goal total is going to rightfully be something that could make teams hesitant on picking them.

So I think the whole suggestion that you just bump it up to the mean here is pretty wild, personally.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Yeah but like... finishing is a skill. The ability to finish or shoot the puck greatly influences shooting %. And a player having a down goal total is going to rightfully be something that could make teams hesitant on picking them.

So I think the whole suggestion that you just bump it up to the mean here is pretty wild, personally.

And Hagens is known as a good finisher. I don’t see why there’s some debate here about his shooting ability. The puck isn’t going in due to bad luck right now. He’ll probably hit a stretch soon here where he scores like 8 goals on 15 shots in a 5 game stretch. It won’t be because he got better at shooting. It’ll be because there are random fluctuations with shooting that come with playing hockey.

It will be if he doesn't pick it up. A problem for a #1 OA pick i mean. You think if he ends the year with 3 or 4 goals it won't be a massive talking point when debating the #1 OA? Of course it will be. Thus why's it's a problem for him to have 1 goal so far.

Okay well then I’m not worried that Hagens will shoot 2.6% for his career, so seems like there’s nothing of substance to discuss here.

 

[Frk It]

And Hagens is known as a good finisher. I don’t see why there’s some debate here about his shooting ability. The puck isn’t going in due to bad luck right now. He’ll probably hit a stretch soon here where he scores like 8 goals on 15 shots in a 5 game stretch. It won’t be because he got better at shooting. It’ll be because there are random fluctuations with shooting that come with playing hockey.

I think that is a much better way to frame this argument and I think that makes a good bit of sense.

Do you think Hagens has a gap over everyone else in this class when evaluating his tools vs the field?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think that is a much better way to frame this argument and I think that makes a good bit of sense.

Do you think Hagens has a gap over everyone else in this class when evaluating his tools vs the field?

No, and I don’t think I said that.

I feel like some people have been making anti-Hagens arguments that are illogical and unfair to the player and that’s why I am pushing back on them.

I get people want a real contest here for 1OA and there will be widespread attempts to drum that up. Not arguing against dissent, but at the same time it has to be fair to all players and logical.

 

[Frk It]

No, and I don’t think I said that.

I feel like some people have been making anti-Hagens arguments that are illogical and unfair to the player and that’s why I am pushing back on them.

Oh ok, just was not sure what your stance was.

To me it seems like you could make a good argument for 3 or 4 guys being ranked #1 in this class. But I haven’t been able to dig into it that much.

 

[Wieters]

Yeah but like... finishing is a skill. The ability to finish or shoot the puck greatly influences shooting %. And a player having a down goal total is going to rightfully be something that could make teams hesitant on picking them.

So I think the whole suggestion that you just bump it up to the mean here is pretty wild, personally.

In basketball, if you miss a shot, then it can largely be attributed to being your fault. In baseball, if you hit the ball hard and/or far but it just happens to not find a gap or the outfielder makes a good play, then we can attribute that to bad luck and expect that it would be different over a larger sample size.

Where hockey shots land on that spectrum is more ambiguous, but I would say they're closer to hits in baseball than shots in basketball.