Wheeler's Top 64 February Rankings

[Golden_Jet]

I love this revisionist history because a bunch of people can’t interpret stats correctly. Literally no one who has followed these players year to year has thought Smith or Cooley were at the same level as Hagens. But I guess when one challenges themselves in a tough environment in their draft year and the others play juniors in their draft year you get a lot of gullible people coming out and failing to interpret differences between leagues.

lol, nice gate keeping,

 

[Hazy Little Thing]

I love this revisionist history because a bunch of people can’t interpret stats correctly. Literally no one who has followed these players year to year has thought Smith or Cooley were at the same level as Hagens. But I guess when one challenges themselves in a tough environment in their draft year and the others play juniors in their draft year you get a lot of gullible people coming out and failing to interpret differences between leagues.

This is absurd. Challenging himself in a tough environment? He’s surrounded by 12 draft picks (including 3 1st rounders, 2 2nds, and a handful of 3rds) on the #1 team in the country. That’s not challenging himself, that’s insulating himself.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

This is absurd. Challenging himself in a tough environment? He’s surrounded by 12 draft picks (including 3 1st rounders, 2 2nds, and a handful of 3rds) on the #1 team in the country. That’s not challenging himself, that’s insulating himself.

Do you not realize how much more difficult the level of competition is between the hardest SOS in the NCAA this year (it’s basically a Allsvenskan level schedule) and a junior schedule? Almost like playing with a lot of talent doesn’t guarantee your team is gonna have 7 goals in a game when the competition is respectable and defends better than a bunch of 18 year old kids.

 

[Corso]

.That’s not challenging himself, that’s insulating himself.

Heard some scouts refer to it as playing on a privileged line or in a privileged situation.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

I think you are still getting projectable guys all the way until that 14-15 range. Its actually an awful year to make the playoffs and get bounced without a cup.

Guys in that 24-30 range, look more like 2nd/3rd rounders in normal years. But as others have said, its just a crapshoot and a guessing game when you get down low to begin with.

That's why I wont be surprised to see heavy 1st round pick movement out of some of the playoff teams come the deadline. Just not too much value in those later picks this year.

 

[Hazy Little Thing]

Do you not realize how much more difficult the level of competition is between the hardest SOS in the NCAA this year (it’s basically a Allsvenskan level schedule) and a junior schedule? Almost like playing with a lot of talent doesn’t guarantee your team is gonna have 7 goals in a game when the competition is respectable and defends better than a bunch of 18 year old kids.

Challenge himself by playing college over juniors? Sure, that’s arguable. Challenging himself by going to BC? Absolutely not lol. Challenging himself playing college hockey would be going to Miami, New Hampshire, Alaska.

Yes BC currently has the toughest SOS but it’s not expected to keep it, they have already played the meat of their schedule and play a bunch of unranked teams to finish. Michigan, whose SOS is only fractionally behind BC’s, finishes with weekends against top 10 ranked Minnesota and Ohio State.

 

[Just Linda]

I love this revisionist history because a bunch of people can’t interpret stats correctly. Literally no one who has followed these players year to year has thought Smith or Cooley were at the same level as Hagens. But I guess when one challenges themselves in a tough environment in their draft year and the others play juniors in their draft year you get a lot of gullible people coming out and failing to interpret differences between leagues.

Cooley went 3rd overall in a similar draft to this one, Smith went 4th overall in a much stronger top of the draft.

Hagens is consistently between 2-4 on most current draft lists.

You've accused people of being gullible, of not being good scouts, of this that and the other thing... maybe its time to look inward. Maybe, just maybe (but not maybe because it is) this is a case of you rating a prospect a lot higher than most people.

I feel I've been pretty consistent with my assessment of the players over the years. I did have Cooley lower on my draft board than most, not by much, but I think he was in the 4-5 range. I had Smith 3rd, after Bedard and Fantilli. I've been saying for 2 years now that I don't feel pre-draft Hagens is nearly as good as pre-draft Fantilli, I believe I made a poll of it in September.

I don't think most people see Hagens for what you hope he is.

 

[Star Platinum]

Fair, I don't see Hagens as having a higher floor though.

I don't see Hagens' completeness as evidence of a higher floor. I feel that a lot of scouts, especially internet ones (Pronman, Wheeler), see a well rounded player as having higher floors but I don't see that projecting as much as high skill and standout skills.

When I've watched Hagens in the past, he seems to fall into the game really well. You watch him and hes more likely to play the system and role you expect him to, he keeps up. Smith, though less consistent, I find has risen above the game quite a bit more often leading into his draft.

A scout told me once that we are used to looking for the best player in the game but we should be looking for a player with specific skills that are too good for the game. I see Smith, who was less complete going into his draft, as having the higher floor because a lot of skills were (imo) higher going into the draft and his flaws weren't impossible to overcome/ improve/ overlook.

I think Hagens has two things going for him that Smith doesn't. He's already a good defensive player, which is not an area Smith has ever really paid much attention to until this year and Hagens is a better skater. Smith's big plus skills are his passing and vision. Theoretically, Smith should be able to add a bit more weight than Hagens with his frame, but even with the height difference, they're already close to the same weight.

 

[Brock]

I love this revisionist history because a bunch of people can’t interpret stats correctly. Literally no one who has followed these players year to year has thought Smith or Cooley were at the same level as Hagens. But I guess when one challenges themselves in a tough environment in their draft year and the others play juniors in their draft year you get a lot of gullible people coming out and failing to interpret differences between leagues.

One hundred percent, Hagens was more highly regarded coming up through the system of USA Hockey. There’s no denying that. But, development is non linear. You simply cannot judge players based on who they were previously. Progression is extremely important.

Also, let’s not insinuate that Hagens’ challenging himself was a personal choice…He’s a late birthday unlike Cooley or Smith. Of course he was going to play NCAA hockey in his draft year.

If we want to compare their age equivalent years in the NCAA (all three of their freshman seasons), Hagens’ production isn’t even in the same stratosphere as Cooley and Smith’s was. They took the same paths and Hagens’ result has been different. You can use the multiple month age gap as an excuse if you want, but you’d be hard pressed to suggest Smith was any less physically mature than Hagens in his freshman year.

Now I say all this as someone who prefers Hagens as a long term prospect to Smith, but the above statement is a fully irrational thought. If Cooley had been born in October and had that freshman year at Minnesota, he’s the first OV pick over Slafkovsky easily.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Challenge himself by playing college over juniors? Sure, that’s arguable. Challenging himself by going to BC? Absolutely not lol. Challenging himself playing college hockey would be going to Miami, New Hampshire, Alaska.

So it’s not challenging yourself If you pick a good team? Should players go to play in Alaska now so they can face more adversity?

Crazy logic. Having a weaker team does bring certain challenges, but it also guarantees stuff like more minutes, bigger role, unlimited chances to screw up and keep your spot. There are pros and cons to playing on a good team and a bad team when talking about if that’s more challenging or not.

It’s not a pro/con situation when we talk about if it’s challenging yourself to play better competition. There is literally no way to spin it negatively, despite your attempt, when it comes to whether it actually is more challenging to face better competition.

Yes BC currently has the toughest SOS but it’s not expected to keep it, they have already played the meat of their schedule and play a bunch of unranked teams to finish. Michigan, whose SOS is only fractionally behind BC’s, finishes with weekends against top 10 ranked Minnesota and Ohio State.

That sounds like something that is impossible to calculate and you pulled out of your ass, but if you want to show your work, please do so.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Cooley went 3rd overall in a similar draft to this one, Smith went 4th overall in a much stronger top of the draft.

Hagens is consistently between 2-4 on most current draft lists.

You've accused people of being gullible, of not being good scouts, of this that and the other thing... maybe its time to look inward. Maybe, just maybe (but not maybe because it is) this is a case of you rating a prospect a lot higher than most people.

I feel I've been pretty consistent with my assessment of the players over the years. I did have Cooley lower on my draft board than most, not by much, but I think he was in the 4-5 range. I had Smith 3rd, after Bedard and Fantilli. I've been saying for 2 years now that I don't feel pre-draft Hagens is nearly as good as pre-draft Fantilli, I believe I made a poll of it in September.

I don't think most people see Hagens for what you hope he is.

This is exactly what I mean.

People with a superficial understanding just make a basic comparison that this player went in that draft slot and that one might go in this slot.

This reminds me of the whole Michkov situation. Russian hockey followers told everyone how good they think Michkov is. He fell for whatever stupid reasons (that seemingly is happening for Hagens). He was regarded as the best Russian prospect since Ovechkin and Malkin. In hindsight, that looks true. It was true at the time. There were just a lot of people who missed the boat for whatever reason they got it wrong.

Hagens has widely been regarded as the best American prospect since Jack Hughes, and potentially the best since Matthews and Eichel. It is very degrading for people that don’t follow anywhere near as closely to tell people who do follow closely what the situation is from their very flawed perspective.

You’d think these experts would’ve stopped thinking they know better than people that know a player best, yet some of you persist.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

One hundred percent, Hagens was more highly regarded coming up through the system of USA Hockey. There’s no denying that. But, development is non linear. You simply cannot judge players based on who they were previously. Progression is extremely important.

So is your suggestion that Hagens peaked at 18? Let’s get you record about this.

Also, let’s not insinuate that Hagens’ challenging himself was a personal choice…He’s a late birthday unlike Cooley or Smith. Of course he was going to play NCAA hockey in his draft year.

Of course it was a personal choice. Like half of the NTDP (if not more) doesn’t play college hockey right after their last year at the program. Many of them play a year of USHL. He could’ve also easily went to play junior in London. He said he seriously considered doing so.

If we want to compare their age equivalent years in the NCAA (all three of their freshman seasons), Hagens’ production isn’t even in the same stratosphere as Cooley and Smith’s was. They took the same paths and Hagens’ result has been different. You can use the multiple month age gap as an excuse if you want, but you’d be hard pressed to suggest Smith was any less physically mature than Hagens in his freshman year.

This is a method to pick winners and losers.

There’s no reason to compare late birthdays to early birthdays, unless you won’t a predetermined outcome. It makes for a very messy comparison, and the early birthdays is always going to get an advantage.

There are plenty of each category, so unless someone wanted a specifically tilted outcome, they would avoid the messy comparison and simply compare players to others who fit into their category (early or late birthday).

 

[Just Linda]

This is exactly what I mean.

People with a superficial understanding just make a basic comparison that this player went in that draft slot and that one might go in this slot.

This reminds me of the whole Michkov situation. Russian hockey followers told everyone how good they think Michkov is. He fell for whatever stupid reasons (that seemingly is happening for Hagens). He was regarded as the best Russian prospect since Ovechkin and Malkin. In hindsight, that looks true. It was true at the time. There were just a lot of people who missed the boat for whatever reason they got it wrong.

Hagens has widely been regarded as the best American prospect since Jack Hughes, and potentially the best since Matthews and Eichel. It is very degrading for people that don’t follow anywhere near as closely to tell people who do follow closely what the situation is from their very flawed perspective.

You’d think these experts would’ve stopped thinking they know better than people that know a player best, yet some of you persist.

I mean, you keep appealing to expertise and authority but so, so many people who watch Hagens acknowledge that he's not as talent as Celebrini including the scouts that Bob McKenzie polls. If he was more promising than Celebrini, he'd be going ahead of Schaefer no questions asked.

I haven't heard anyone, but you, call him the best prospect since a year ago. And lots of folk watch a lot of his games, even more than I do.

It's cool if you disagree with them. We all have different opinions on players, I'm notably lower on Martone than the consensus, but your opinion doesn't make you right and isn't an invitation to condescend and insult others.

 

[eklund2chicago]

This is exactly what I mean.

People with a superficial understanding just make a basic comparison that this player went in that draft slot and that one might go in this slot.

This reminds me of the whole Michkov situation. Russian hockey followers told everyone how good they think Michkov is. He fell for whatever stupid reasons (that seemingly is happening for Hagens). He was regarded as the best Russian prospect since Ovechkin and Malkin. In hindsight, that looks true. It was true at the time. There were just a lot of people who missed the boat for whatever reason they got it wrong.

Hagens has widely been regarded as the best American prospect since Jack Hughes, and potentially the best since Matthews and Eichel. It is very degrading for people that don’t follow anywhere near as closely to tell people who do follow closely what the situation is from their very flawed perspective.

You’d think these experts would’ve stopped thinking they know better than people that know a player best, yet some of you persist.

Yeah this is not at all similar to Michkov.
Michkov put up historical production in his draft year but fell due to uncertainty regarding his contract and allegedly that he told teams he didn’t want to be drafted by them. It was also a very strong, top heavy draft class and he had some rumoured character issues.

Hagens has put up decent but not at all 1st overall worthy production while other top players have taken huge strides in their development. If he falls, it’s because teams feel that other players are better. Simply as that and not weird considering how well Schaefer played before injury and the pace Misa is scoring at atm.

 

[OversKy]

This is not true.

Plenty of the experts told us that Carlsson, Fantilli, and Smith were better prospects than Michkov, let alone Bedard. Michkov actually rarely even made it as high as second on most lists.

The contract and maybe telling teams not to draft him is part of why Reinbacher and Simashev might've been picked ahead, but you are letting "the experts" off way too easily. The experts simply missed. They didn't interpret what they were seeing correctly.

Okay, and this is why you'll be another that naively fell for faulty narratives. Hagens is a real intelligence test. Can people interpret properly his production compared to those players against vastly easier competition? I guess not everyone can pass intelligence tests.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand James Hagens. The skill is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of his play will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also his production, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The high IQ hockey fan understands this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of his decision making, to realise that they're not just bad shots- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike James Hagens truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the nuance of having a existential "scoring crisis" which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Hagens genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a USNDTP tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

I'm having a tough time choosing between Misa and Hagens.

It's a close debate between the former's more projectable frame and rounded skillset versus the latter's decision making and details. I hope the end of the season reveals a greater level of separation between the two so I can rest easy and get to my accounting homework.

 

[Hazy Little Thing]

So it’s not challenging yourself If you pick a good team? Should players go to play in Alaska now so they can face more adversity?

Crazy logic. Having a weaker team does bring certain challenges, but it also guarantees stuff like more minutes, bigger role, unlimited chances to screw up and keep your spot. There are pros and cons to playing on a good team and a bad team when talking about if that’s more challenging or not.

It’s not a pro/con situation when we talk about if it’s challenging yourself to play better competition. There is literally no way to spin it negatively, despite your attempt, when it comes to whether it actually is more challenging to face better competition.

That sounds like something that is impossible to calculate and you pulled out of your ass, but if you want to show your work, please do so.

Because there’s a formula to calculate SOS, there’s a formula to calculate remaining SOS. It’s not rocket science.

 

[Mathieukferland]

it’s basically a Allsvenskan level schedule

You’ve said this times, and it’s simply not true. The jump from NCAA to European pro is huge, even second division pro like allsvenskan. The average allsvenskan would fairly easily beat any NCAA team

 

[HuGort]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6101718/2025/02/13/nhl-draft-2025-ranking-wheeler-midseason/

Misa is starting to get some love....but Shaefer retains the number one spot

Where did Wheeler rank Prokhorov?

 

[Langway]

That's why I wont be surprised to see heavy 1st round pick movement out of some of the playoff teams come the deadline. Just not too much value in those later picks this year.

Most of them have already moved, though. Only CAR, WSH and WPG still have theirs among teams picking in that range. WSH & WPG for sure ought to be looking to move theirs to try to put themselves over the top.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I mean, you keep appealing to expertise and authority but so, so many people who watch Hagens acknowledge that he's not as talent as Celebrini including the scouts that Bob McKenzie polls. If he was more promising than Celebrini, he'd be going ahead of Schaefer no questions asked.

I haven't heard anyone, but you, call him the best prospect since a year ago. And lots of folk watch a lot of his games, even more than I do.

It's cool if you disagree with them. We all have different opinions on players, I'm notably lower on Martone than the consensus, but your opinion doesn't make you right and isn't an invitation to condescend and insult others.

Good post and yes the condescending and hyperbole in replies is annoying, especially when poster’s opinion is in the minority.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

Most of them have already moved, though. Only CAR, WSH and WPG still have theirs among teams picking in that range. WSH & WPG for sure ought to be looking to move theirs to try to put themselves over the top.

Very true. But I would expect LA, Vancouver, Detroit to also. Hell even Ottawa and Columbus may.

Although those teams are outside of that range of 24-30, I would still think their FO’s haven’t put too much stock in those 1st rounders.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Because there’s a formula to calculate SOS, there’s a formula to calculate remaining SOS. It’s not rocket science.

Okay, so if what you said is true, let’s see your work.

I simply don’t believe what you’re saying. If you can prove it, I’ll apologize for doubting you.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

You’ve said this times, and it’s simply not true. The jump from NCAA to European pro is huge, even second division pro like allsvenskan. The average allsvenskan would fairly easily beat any NCAA team

It’s above NCAA for sure. I agree that European pro is a big step up. That’s why I chose like the 6th best European pro league. If you wanna choose like the 7th or 8th best instead, whatever. I’m not trying to argue semantics, but it’s definitely comparable to some level of European pro.

 

[Hazy Little Thing]

Okay, so if what you said is true, let’s see your work.

I simply don’t believe what you’re saying. If you can prove it, I’ll apologize for doubting you.

I mean, you understand it’s dynamic right? Like you can guess which teams win and lose and project the SOS rankings but until the games are actually played we don’t know for sure. Just that it’s highly probable that in two weeks BC will not have the #1 SOS. I’ll circle back here then and we will see.