Prospect Info: The 2026 NHL Draft First Round Thread - Part 4

[Vector]

Last thread got long in the tooth. Need to chew on some bark to trim it down.

 

[CanaFan]

@dep
Your math on positional value only works in a vacuum, not at pick #3. Saying a 60pt two way center is worth more than an 80 pt winger is true, but that completely misses what you are passing up at the top of the draft. You aren't passing on Malhotra to draft a standard 80 pt winger. You are passing on him to draft an elite, franchise altering 1D or a 90+ point game breaking winger, which is significantly harder to acquire if we don't have them. Wasting that premium capital on a safe 2C completely destroys the draft value.

If you draft Malhotra this year, you still have to draft a franchise 1C next year anyway if you want to win a Cup, meaning after two drafts you only walk away with a 1C and a 2C spine. By passing on Malhotra, you finish with an elite franchise 1D and your franchise 1C. A true #1 defenseman plays 25 minutes a night, dictates the entire game, and is exponentially harder to find than a 60pt 2C.

There are no clear cut franchise altering #1D in this draft nor 90+ point game breaking wingers outside of McKenna.

It’s certainly possible that some players surprise and do reach those levels - just like Malhotra could exceed the 2C projection and become an 80pt 1C in the same mold as Mark Scheifele - but those are not the widely held expectations.

 

[LemonSauceD]

My dream scenario is we make a move for a top 10 pick (Seattle, Winnipeg, Florida) and walk away with one of Stenberg/Malhotra and one of Carels/Reid/Rudolph/Smits/Verhoeff or even Gustafsson. Walking away with 2 potential cornerstone guys would be massive this early into the rebuild.

 

[dep]

There are no clear cut franchise altering #1D in this draft nor 90+ point game breaking wingers outside of McKenna.

It’s certainly possible that some players do exceed expectations and reach those levels - just like Malhotra could exceed expectations and become a 80pt 1C in the same mold as Mark Scheifele - but those are not the widely held expectations.

Bro, at the end of the day, it’s not our decision to make anyway. As a fan, I think Caleb is a very good hockey player with a great future, but unfortunately, he just doesn't carry enough game breaking value to justify taking him at 3rd OA. Using a premium top3 asset on his specific profile loses massive asset value and actively puts this organization's rebuilding timeline behind schedule. Sticking to long-term plan to maximize our draft capital is 100 times better than just drafting a guy because people love his style or his father's NHL pedigree. We need a franchise altering piece at #3. That being said, if the scouting staff genuinely thinks he is the guy worth that premium value after doing all their homework, I am more than happy to trust them and welcome him to the team.

 

[Rowlet]

"Your math on positional value only works in a vacuum, not at pick #3. Saying a 60pt two way center is worth more than an 80 pt winger is true, but that completely misses what you are passing up at the top of the draft. You aren't passing on Malhotra to draft a standard 80 pt winger. You are passing on him to draft an elite, franchise altering 1D or a 90+ point game breaking winger, which is significantly harder to acquire if we don't have them. Wasting that premium capital on a safe 2C completely destroys the draft value.

If you draft Malhotra this year, you still have to draft a franchise 1C next year anyway if you want to win a Cup, meaning after two drafts you only walk away with a 1C and a 2C spine. By passing on Malhotra, you finish with an elite franchise 1D and your franchise 1C. A true #1 defenseman plays 25 minutes a night, dictates the entire game, and is exponentially harder to find than a 60pt 2C."

There are no sure fire 1Cs, elite wingers or certified 1Ds in this draft, it's a bad draft, the team needs to win the lottery the next two years for DuPont and another elite C anyways, and next year the draft is full of them if the Canucks don't win DuPont.

It's also ridiculous to paint McStenberg as 90+ point difference makers without also acknowledging that Malhotra's ceiling, a ppg+ 1C is a lot more valuable.

 

[Icebreakers]

My dream scenario is we make a move for a top 10 pick (Seattle, Winnipeg, Florida) and walk away with one of Stenberg/Malhotra and one of Carels/Reid/Rudolph/Smits/Verhoeff or even Gustafsson. Walking away with 2 potential cornerstone guys would be massive this early into the rebuild.

Not going to happen as we don't have the resources for that. It's a huge drop off after the top 13 or so picks

McKenna
Stenberg
Malhotra
Reid
Carels
Smits
Bjork
Verhoeff
Rudolph



Some would put Lawrence/Belcher's/Hemming/Gustafsson in the next tier.

To go from that to 24, you're looking at guys like Morozov, Dagenais, Hulbert, Hextall, etc

Huge drop off.

No idea why the team in the top 12 would trade down to 24 unless if it's a massive overpayment.

Imagine if we had the 9th overall pick, what would you want to trade back to 24?

 

[CanaFan]

.

Bro, at the end of the day, it’s not our decision to make anyway. As a fan, I think Caleb is a very good hockey player with a great future, but unfortunately, he just doesn't carry enough game breaking value to justify taking him at 3rd OA. Using a premium top3 asset on his specific profile loses massive asset value and actively puts this organization's rebuilding timeline behind schedule. Sticking to long-term plan to maximize our draft capital is 100 times better than just drafting a guy because people love his style or his father's NHL pedigree. We need a franchise altering piece at #3. That being said, if the scouting staff genuinely thinks he is the guy worth that premium value after doing all their homework, I am more than happy to trust them and welcome him to the team.

General sense from scouts and draft watchers is there are no franchise altering players in this draft outside of potentially Mckenna and even then he has massive warts that weren’t present on Bedard, Celebrini, or Schaefer.

Just because you want that type of player, doesn’t mean you can get it, no matter how high you draft. The history of #3 picks is littered with more guys like McTavish, Sennecke, Dach, Cooley, PL Dubois, Frondell, etc than it is with guys like Draisaitl, Heiskanen, and Stutzle. Good pieces (and a few busts), not often elite pieces.

And I do trust the Canuck scouts to look at all of these players and - hopefully - make the best choice. They might get it wrong - all teams do from time to time - but I trust that they’ll make a well informed and reasoned choice that looks at all of these players players traits, skills, character, growth and trajectory, etc and not just their hockeydb page.

And if that’s Stenberg, or Reid, or Carels then fine by me, I’m not the one arguing tooth and nail for any specific player. I am arguing that your rationale for excluding Malhotra is flawed and that he’s in the same group of considerations as these other players, none of whom are projected to be franchise altering picks.

 

[Rowlet]

Bro, at the end of the day, it’s not our decision to make anyway. As a fan, I think Caleb is a very good hockey player with a great future, but unfortunately, he just doesn't carry enough game breaking value to justify taking him at 3rd OA. Using a premium top3 asset on his specific profile loses massive asset value and actively puts this organization's rebuilding timeline behind schedule. Sticking to long-term plan to maximize our draft capital is 100 times better than just drafting a guy because people love his style or his father's NHL pedigree. We need a franchise altering piece at #3. That being said, if the scouting staff genuinely thinks he is the guy worth that premium value after doing all their homework, I am more than happy to trust them and welcome him to the team.

Did Toews carry enough value to be drafted at 3? He was picked over the much flashier Backstrom and Kessel.

Toews wasn't even PPG in his draft year, he was viewed as the safe pick in the draft and that he was "a solid 2 way player"

 

[dep]

Did Toews carry enough value to be drafted at 3? He was picked over the much flashier Backstrom and Kessel.

Toews wasn't even PPG in his draft year, he was viewed as the safe pick in the draft and that he was "a solid 2 way player"

Comparing Toews’ freshman college stats to Caleb’s OHL stats is a mistake. Toews wasn't PPG because he was a 17 yrs old freshman playing in the NCAA (WCHA at that time) against 22 yrs old at the University of North Dakota. He put up 39 points in 42 games in the WCHA, which was one of the most brutal, defensive college conferences in hockey history

 

[CanaFan]

Comparing Toews’ freshman college stats to Caleb’s OHL stats is a mistake. Toews wasn't PPG because he was a 17 yrs old freshman playing in the NCAA (WCHA at that time) against 22 yrs old at the University of North Dakota. He put up 39 points in 42 games in the WCHA, which was one of the most brutal, defensive college conferences in hockey history

That same draft had Phil Kessel - drafted 2 spots after Toews - put up 51 pts in 39 games in the same conference against 22 year olds, so there’s obviously something else beyond scoring stats at play. Age, size, position, and off-puck play is always valuable and part of the equation.

 

[Rowlet]

Comparing Toews’ freshman college stats to Caleb’s OHL stats is a mistake. Toews wasn't PPG because he was a 17 yrs old freshman playing in the NCAA (WCHA at that time) against 22 yrs old at the University of North Dakota. He put up 39 points in 42 games in the WCHA, which was one of the most brutal, defensive college conferences in hockey history

I thought it went without saying, but this:

That same draft had Phil Kessel - drafted 2 spots after Toews - put up 51 pts in 39 games in the same conference against 22 year olds, so there’s obviously something else beyond scoring stats at play. Age, size, position, and off-puck play is always valuable and part of the equation.

 

[dep]

.

General sense from scouts and draft watchers is there are no franchise altering players in this draft?outside of potentially Mckenna and even then he has massive warts that weren’t present on Bedard, Celebrini, or Schaefer.

Just because you want that type of player, doesn’t mean you can get it, no matter how high you draft. The history of #3 picks is littered with more guys like McTavish, Sennecke, Dach, Cooley, PL Dubois, Frondell, etc than it is with guys like Draisaitl, Heiskanen, and Stutzle. Good pieces (and a few busts), not often elite pieces.

And I do trust the Canuck scouts to look at all of these players and - hopefully - make the best choice. They might get it wrong - all teams do from time to time - but I trust that they’ll make a well informed and reasoned choice that looks at all of these players players traits, skills, character, growth and trajectory, etc and not just their hockeydb page.

And if that’s Stenberg, or Reid, or Carels then fine by me, I’m not the one arguing tooth and nail for any specific player. I am arguing that your rationale for excluding Malhotra is flawed and that he’s in the same group of considerations as these other players, none of whom are projected to be franchise altering picks.

Your point about trusting the scouts is 100% fair, and honestly, I don't fully trust them either. Their scouting departments are severely lagging behind when it comes to building modern internal databases, and they don't have the data scientists or software engineers needed to project these players purely on metrics. That is exactly why I haven't just excluded Malhotra out of spite, I laid out real data comparing his D-1 production, his draft year numbers, and the context of how his season actually went from start to finish. I really can't see why he is the premium value piece that we can't pass on.

 

[CanaFan]

Your point about trusting the scouts is 100% fair, and honestly, I don't fully trust them either. Their scouting departments are severely lagging behind when it comes to building modern internal databases, and they don't have the data scientists or software engineers needed to project these players purely on metrics. That is exactly why I haven't just excluded Malhotra out of spite, I laid out real data comparing his D-1 production, his draft year numbers, and the context of how his season actually went from start to finish. I really can't see why he is the premium value piece that we can't pass on.

Probably because you’re putting too much weight on his D-1 production and not enough on the degree to which he has grown his game since then. Public scouts like Cam Robinson have said they put almost no weight on D-2 or D-1 seasons because kids are developing so rapidly at this stage it is essentially irrelevant.

If D-1 mattered then Verhoeff and Roobroeck would be locks for the top 5 this June.

Edit: Question to you, who are these elite prospects that we can’t afford to pass up for Malhotra? Is it just Stenberg? Or does it include anyone else?

 

[dep]

That same draft had Phil Kessel - drafted 2 spots after Toews - put up 51 pts in 39 games in the same conference against 22 year olds, so there’s obviously something else beyond scoring stats at play. Age, size, position, and off-puck play is always valuable and part of the equation.

Kessel did not drop to #5 behind Toews just because of "off-puck play" or position. He fell because he had character and attitude red flags during his freshman year at Minnesota that scared teams away from his elite point totals.

Caleb does not have a single character issue or attitude red flag, everyone praises his elite work ethic and locker room leadership. He simply has a lower offensive ceiling based on his historical CHL production.

 

[CanaFan]

Kessel did not drop to #5 behind Toews just because of "off-puck play" or position. He fell because he had character and attitude red flags during his freshman year at Minnesota that scared teams away from his elite point totals.

Caleb does not have a single character issue or attitude red flag, everyone praises his elite work ethic and locker room leadership. He simply has a lower offensive ceiling based on his historical CHL production.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true. Kessel had elite production and was considered an early lock for 1OA. I don’t think it was only “attitude problems” that caused him to fall to 5, but certainly that was a part of it. But wingers are generally valued lower than Centres and especially one-dimensional ones like Kessel vs multi-faceted ones like Toews.

Anyway, let’s get back to the actual players that we’re talking about and not rehash a 20 year old draft.

 

[dep]

Probably because you’re putting too much weight on his D-1 production and not enough on the degree to which he has grown his game since then. Public scouts like Cam Robinson have said they put almost no weight on D-2 or D-1 seasons because kids are developing so rapidly at this stage it is essentially irrelevant.

If D-1 mattered then Verhoeff and Roobroeck would be locks for the top 5 this June.

Edit: Question to you, who are these elite prospects that we can’t afford to pass up for Malhotra? Is it just Stenberg? Or does it include anyone else?

Saying scouts put almost no weight on D-2 or D-1 seasons is completely inaccurate. In fact, public scouts like Cam Robinson are precisely the ones arguing that you should not overdraft Malhotra at #3 overall. They routinely point out that a massive, late season playoff surge heavily driven by secondary PP points doesn't magically rewrite a player's core offensive baseline.

Nobody says D-1 stats are everything, but they absolutely establish a baseline of a player's natural offensive instincts and vision. Growth matters, but there is a massive difference between a player naturally developing versus a scouting department overreacting to a 15-game hot streak.

Your point about Verhoeff and Roobroeck actually proves my argument. Both players had incredible D-1 seasons, but they aren't top5 locks right now because their draft year progression stagnated, exposing their lower offensive ceilings. If scouts completely ignored D-1 data, they wouldn't even be evaluating their current stagnation against that historical benchmark to drop them down the boards

 

[CanaFan]

Saying scouts put almost no weight on D-2 or D-1 seasons is completely inaccurate. In fact, public scouts like Cam Robinson are precisely the ones arguing that you should not overdraft Malhotra at #3 overall. They routinely point out that a massive, late season playoff surge heavily driven by secondary PP points doesn't magically rewrite a player's core offensive baseline.

I’ve listened to multiple Robinson interviews and he absolutely is not saying that about Malhotra. His most recent hit on D&D talks about how much he and his team at EliteProspects are torn on their ranking of Bjork (4) and Malhotra (5), stating how close they are and how much his scouts are going back and forth.

Nobody says D-1 stats are everything, but they absolutely establish a baseline of a player's natural offensive instincts and vision. Growth matters, but there is a massive difference between a player naturally developing versus a scouting department overreacting to a 15-game hot streak.

They are pretty close to irrelevant on their own, but yes I suppose they do matter in establishing whether a player is progressing or stagnating. However even a stagnating player like Lafreniere can hold onto his draft ranking while a rapid riser might still be a lower draft pick at an absolute level (Wyatt Cullen is a huge riser but still a stretch to go in the top 10).

What I am saying is that scouts don’t use it as a “negative” when the D-2 or D-1 season isn’t a strong one, as long as the current draft season is. The most recent performance holds massively more weight than 12-24 months ago. Go look at Mark Scheifele’s D-1 to Draft season for an example of exactly that.

Your point about Verhoeff and Roobroeck actually proves my argument. Both players had incredible D-1 seasons, but they aren't top5 locks right now because their draft year progression stagnated, exposing their lower offensive ceilings. If scouts completely ignored D-1 data, they wouldn't even be evaluating their current stagnation against that historical benchmark to drop them down the boards

See above. Also even if you ignore Roobroeck’s D-1 completely, he’s still going to be a late 1st/early 2nd because his current season simply wasn’t that good. Even without the stagnation, scouts didnt like his 2025-26 performance enough to rank him high.

 

[dellzor]

It's like when Chychrun had an insane D-1 season and was in contention to be 1st overall but then he kind of stagnated and fell down to 16th

 

[dep]

I’ve listened to multiple Robinson interviews and he absolutely is not saying that about Malhotra. His most recent hit on D&D talks about how much he and his team at EliteProspects are torn on their ranking of Bjork (4) and Malhotra (5), stating how close they are and how much his scouts are going back and forth.



They are pretty close to irrelevant on their own, but yes I suppose they do matter in establishing whether a player is progressing or stagnating. However even a stagnating player like Lafreniere can hold onto his draft ranking while a rapid riser might still be a lower draft pick at an absolute level (Wyatt Cullen is a huge riser but still a stretch to go in the top 10).

What I am saying is that scouts don’t use it as a “negative” when the D-2 or D-1 season isn’t a strong one, as long as the current draft season is. The most recent performance holds massively more weight than 12-24 months ago. Go look at Mark Scheifele’s D-1 to Draft season for an example of exactly that.




See above. Also even if you ignore Roobroeck’s D-1 completely, he’s still going to be a late 1st/early 2nd because his current season simply wasn’t that good. Even without the stagnation, scouts didnt like his 2025-26 performance enough to rank him high.

Cam Robinson on his consensus draft rankings, Malhotra is ranked #8 overall,Anyway, I have laid out my entire reasoning path with concrete evidence, using year-over-year production, regular season data, teammate comparisons, and historical draft slot values to prove exactly why taking Caleb at #3 is a massive positional and asset management risk.

You can disagree with my conclusion, but you need to actually prove your point first. Show us your model. Explain the data that justifies drafting a 1.25 PPG player from OHL with a premium top3 pick when his baseline numbers indicate a safe, lower ceiling 2C outcome. So far, you haven't put forward a single valuable point/data to back up your argument other than your own imagination. If you want to claim he belongs at #3 over an elite 1D or a 90+ point winger, show us the statistical backing. Otherwise, you're just drafting a name and a style, while ignoring the asset value that actually builds a powerhouse. Mark my words, the Canucks won't make that mistake.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

There are no sure fire 1Cs, elite wingers or certified 1Ds in this draft, it's a bad draft, the team needs to win the lottery the next two years for DuPont and another elite C anyways, and next year the draft is full of them if the Canucks don't win DuPont.

*sigh* ... It is a shame we don't have anyone certifying 1Ds. (what?)

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I’ve listened to multiple Robinson interviews and he absolutely is not saying that about Malhotra. His most recent hit on D&D talks about how much he and his team at EliteProspects are torn on their ranking of Bjork (4) and Malhotra (5), stating how close they are and how much his scouts are going back and forth.

Ya, and I have Bjorck at 6 and Malhotra at 7 with Carels at 8. They put Smits at 8. I'm sitting here pointing out Smits has better stats in Liiga (on a far far worse team) than Heiskanen in their draft years + dominating U20s, plus solid as all hell in the olympics and world champs and I have multiple people on here saying, "The scouts say he is low ceiling. He goes 8-15."

You watch Smits in U20 dummy kids and go "oh my god... this is a player." You watch Malhotra simply lose to an ok team in the playoffs while accomplishing nothing and I get literally every day media telling me "This is a character guy who is like Celibrini, a top 3 pick all day."

Going crazy this year.

 

[brrt]

Cam Robinson on his consensus draft rankings, Malhotra is ranked #8 overall,Anyway, I have laid out my entire reasoning path with concrete evidence, using year-over-year production, regular season data, teammate comparisons, and historical draft slot values to prove exactly why taking Caleb at #3 is a massive positional and asset management risk.

You can disagree with my conclusion, but you need to actually prove your point first. Show us your model. Explain the data that justifies drafting a 1.25 PPG player from OHL with a premium top3 pick when his baseline numbers indicate a safe, lower ceiling 2C outcome. So far, you haven't put forward a single valuable point/data to back up your argument other than your own imagination. If you want to claim he belongs at #3 over an elite 1D or a 90+ point winger, show us the statistical backing. Otherwise, you're just drafting a name and a style, while ignoring the asset value that actually builds a powerhouse. Mark my words, the Canucks won't make that mistake.

You do realize that people can like a player for how they play hockey, right? Like I think Malhotra is the best prospect in the draft class and the only thing I've read that has even a minimal bearing on that is that he was born in June.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

You do realize that people can like a player for how they play hockey, right? Like I think Malhotra is the best prospect in the draft class and the only thing I've read that has even a minimal bearing on that is that he was born in June.

Can you point me to the games where he proved this to you? I keep asking for those and no one provides them. I have gone through 8 games now (half multi point games) and Malhotra has been underwhelming at best.

Here is a whole game I have watched 3 times now trying to find the supposed top 3 pick:

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

What I am saying is that scouts don’t use it as a “negative” when the D-2 or D-1 season isn’t a strong one, as long as the current draft season is. The most recent performance holds massively more weight than 12-24 months ago. Go look at Mark Scheifele’s D-1 to Draft season for an example of exactly that.

So do we have any particular reason why Smits is going 8-13 on the rankings of a bunch of these scouts while his numbers/toi/everything indicate a better prospect than Heiskanen in his draft year?

This, to me, screams they don't want to put a Latvian top 5 cause if you watch tape of Carels vs Smits playing guys under 20 it isn't close (Smits > Carels), yet I see 7/10 scouts putting Carels ahead for no particular reason.

 

[brrt]

Can you point me to the games where he proved this to you? I keep asking for those and no one provides them. I have gone through 8 games now (half multi point games) and Malhotra has been underwhelming at best.

No, I haven't memorized the games like that. He impressed me at the CHL-NTDP games, then every game I watched of him after that I just saw more and more things I liked.