#draft 26

Draft defined by debate at No. 1

For the better part of three years, McKenna has been the presumptive No. 1 pick. His offensive toolkit, elite skill level and scoring track record are among the very best we’ve seen in recent years from a prospect. But projecting players comes down to more than just points. Evaluators are forced to weigh his immense scoring upside against real questions about how his game will translate to heavy, playoff-style hockey.

“McKenna is the most talented player in the draft. But is he the most likely guy to win a championship?” one scouting director asked. “That’s what we’re going to be talking about in meetings.”

“He’s an excellent player,” said a veteran scout. “In the middle of the season, I’m sure you’ll see some highlight-reel plays, and some four- or five-point nights. But when things get tough, if that’s the guy you’re leaning on in the playoffs, our guys would be so excited to play against him. I would take Stenberg, Reid (and) Malhotra ahead of him.”

“He’s going to score a ton in the NHL. He’s special with the puck and on the power play,” said an executive. “My concern is he’s like Artemi Panarin. He’ll get his accolades, but he’ll also be on three to four teams and never make real noise in the playoffs.”

“He’s got to be one of the most unusual top Canadian prospects I’ve seen,” said a scout. “You can’t find him some nights, and he can be so frustrating, but his talent is freakish. He can not really try and still have three points.”

Still, passing on a player with McKenna’s raw talent and elite offensive brain is a terrifying proposition for a general manager.

“I would have a really hard time passing on the special skill,” said a veteran scout. “That’s the kind of stuff that gets you fired.”

“People are overthinking this one,” said a scouting director. “His scoring track record is special. His offensive brain and stick are special. He rips up the WHL for years and then rips up college hockey and was a top scorer at the World Juniors.”

“I don’t think McKenna is separated from the pack,” said a scout who had him at 1, “but I would still just take the guy with 100-point potential.”

“I’m normally the first one who puts centers and defensemen ahead of wingers on my list,” said another scout, “but I think there’s a separation between McKenna and the rest.”

“I get the concerns, and I have them as well, but there is a realistic chance he’s Patrick Kane or Nikita Kucherov. His brain and hands are that special,” said another scouting director. “This isn’t a Shane Wright situation with McKenna, where (Juraj) Slafkovský pulled away from Wright and Wright didn’t have a great draft season. McKenna had a great season. He deserves to be in this conversation. The issue is his profile isn’t amazing, and there are guys who are close to him. But if you don’t take him and he becomes what some think he can, you look like an idiot.”

“I think his development will go similarly to Jack Hughes,” added an executive. “It may take a minute in the NHL for him to adjust physically, but he’s so good that eventually he will become a premier scorer. Even if you’re not a huge McKenna believer, at some point this conversation gets ridiculous, and I say that admitting that he drives me crazy. Maybe you like Stenberg or Reid more, but very quickly he becomes dramatically more skilled than the next best player.”

Because the gap between McKenna and the rest of the top tier is perceived to be narrow, the ultimate decision might be taken out of the scouting department’s hands entirely, even with some of the concerns they may have.

“It doesn’t matter what the scouts think when you win the lottery,” one veteran evaluator said. “The GM can wipe their ass with your list. At that point, it becomes a management, if not even an ownership call.”

Is Stenberg the smarter bet?

As we approach the draft, there’s a growing debate between McKenna and Stenberg. The gap in dynamic talent between the two wingers is distinct, but teams are deeply divided on who possesses the more translatable NHL game.

“Only two right answers to who to go 1. McKenna or Stenberg, don’t get cute,” a scouting director said.

“I love Stenberg. He’s been so good this season,” raved a scout. “In the medal round of the World Juniors, the way he elevated was very impressive. He’s very talented, and the way he grinds for pucks will translate to the NHL. I would take him at 1.”

Stenberg is a 5-foot-11 winger, but his compete level, direct style and willingness to play inside the dots appeal to evaluators who worry about McKenna’s perimeter tendencies.

“He’s not as smart or skilled as McKenna, but the way he plays and how he generates his offense translates better to the NHL,” said a director. “He’s direct, he gets to the net, he gets the puck on net, he can make high-end plays, but he’s not looking to be fancy when the play isn’t there.”

Another scout pointed out the stylistic difference: “He doesn’t have McKenna’s hockey sense, but his shot is elite, and he gets to the net to score, which McKenna doesn’t.”

However, drafting a sub-6-foot winger high always carries inherent risk. If the offense doesn’t pop at an elite level, the value plummets quickly.

“If Stenberg doesn’t score a lot, I don’t love his backup game,” cautioned a scout. “If he’s a 50-point, 5-11 wing, it’s not a very valuable piece. For those D like Šmits, Reid, Verhoeff or Carels, even if they’re not running a power play at the end of the day, they can be useful parts of a playoff lineup. There’s more B-game there.”

Because of that limited B-game, several evaluators pushed back on the idea that Stenberg is a lock for the top two.

“The media talks about him and McKenna like they’re the consensus top two guys, but I don’t think teams have it that way,” an executive revealed. “My guess is most teams have one of those guys in their top 2, and then a defenseman or Malhotra. I could honestly see Stenberg get closer to 5 than to 1; he’s not the same type of talent as McKenna.”

Another scout was even more direct: “People talk about this guy like he’s a slam dunk to go 1 or 2. It reminds me of William Eklund’s hype; he was in everyone’s top five, and then he goes 7. When teams get to meetings, and they describe a smaller winger who isn’t dynamic to their GMs, he will start moving down lists.”

The strength of this class: A deep, debated blue line

There’s an immense amount of love for this year’s top defensemen. The sheer variety of profiles — from towering, physical defenders to elite, smooth-skating puck movers — means teams will have their pick of premium assets. It also means no two teams have them ranked in the exact same order.

Keaton Verhoeff

Verhoeff’s massive size and soft touch make him a unicorn in this class, though his decision to play college hockey this year has made his evaluation a bit trickier than his CHL counterparts.

“I’m probably an outlier with the season he had, but I have him 1,” said an executive. “It’s so rare to find a defenseman his size, who can move, who can make plays and can defend very well.”

“He looks special,” said a scout. “The soft plays he can make with the puck, his vision, his athleticism. He’s the kind of defenseman you can typically only get with a top-three pick.”

“He reminds me so much of Aaron Ekblad,” said another. “He’s big, heavy, he can make a pass.”

Some evaluators, however, push back on his ultimate offensive ceiling and processing speed.

“I have questions on his hockey sense,” said a scouting director. “Not major ones, I think he plays all day, but the level of offense he brings may be closer to someone like Simon Edvinsson than a true power-play type, and he’s smaller than Edvinsson.”

An executive was harsher: “His brain is so-so. He’s a good player, but I don’t see any special traits in his game when I watch him, other than maybe his shot.”

Still, a scout defended his collegiate context: “People will beat him up a bit for his year in college, but if he was back in the WHL, he would have had the years guys like Carels and Rudolph did without question, especially when you consider his production in the WHL a year ago. He should still be in the conversation to be the first defenseman.”

Chase Reid

If you want pure offensive talent from the back end, Reid is the guy.

“Reid is a strange prospect. Two years ago, he got cut from the USHL. Now we’re talking about him in the top three,” said an executive. “But his play has deserved it.”

“He’s a rare defense prospect,” a scout gushed. “His combination of skating, size, skill, brain; I may have seen a handful of guys in the CHL in my time who are this talented.”

“He has elite skill, great feet, he makes an impact all over the ice. He has star potential,” said an executive.

"He has a real chance to become a No. 1 defenseman,” added another scout. “He should be in the conversation with McKenna/Stenberg for sure.”

The knock on Reid is predictable for a highly offensive junior blueliner. “His defending is a concern for me,” said a scout. “He’s gotten a lot better in that area, but he definitely cares more about scoring than he does about playing in his own end.”

“For as much as he’s talked about as this elite puck-mover, Carson Carels and Daxon Rudolph produced more while being much younger,” added another scout.

Alberts Šmits

The top European defender in the class has fervent supporters and highly skeptical detractors.

“I think McKenna goes 1, and then the conversation for Šmits starts at 2,” an executive said.

A scout went even further on his translatability: “I have Šmits at 1. Reminds me of (Moritz) Seider. He’s not as physical, but he’s detailed, competitive, can move pucks, makes a lot of stops while being able to help a power play. An NHL coach will give him a ton of minutes.”

“It’s easy to see him playing top-four minutes,” another scout agreed. “He looked so good versus men this season. He can skate, he can move pucks, he is a very good defender.”

But the puck skills and processing are debated at the top of the board. “I have questions on his hockey IQ,” a scouting director said. “I don’t think he sees the game at a high level like some of the other top defensemen in this draft. He reminds me of Sam Dickinson a bit, but maybe not quite as good a skater.”

Another executive added, “I don’t see the hype with Šmits. He’s a good player, but he’s very vanilla with the puck.”

But others aren’t deterred by those offensive critiques. “People said a lot of the same stuff about Moritz Seider, and he seems to be doing fine,” countered one scout.

Carson Carels

Among the defensemen, Carels has earned widespread praise for his highly translatable, winning profile.

“Carels is an all-day top-four NHL defenseman,” a scouting director said. “Great, fluid skater who is an elite defender, and he has a lot more offense than some give him credit for. He could be the best defenseman in this draft.”

“This is a guy you win with,” a scout agreed. “Such a detailed, smart, all-around defenseman. He skates very well, he lays out his body, he can make plays.”

“There are times I questioned how much offense he has exactly, especially coming into the season,” another scout acknowledged, “but then he had a monster year and elevated in big moments over the season. He’s silenced any doubts you may have had about him.”

Still, early physical maturity can sometimes trick evaluators at the junior level. “I worry he’s a bit maxed out,” cautioned a scouting director. “He competes, he’s hard to play against, but I don’t see the elite brain to continue developing offense at the next level.”

Daxon Rudolph

Rudolph relies on high-end processing and poise, slotting in right behind the top tier for many teams.

“It would be between him and Reid for who is the most purely talented defenseman,” an executive said. “I think he has more skill in his game than Verhoeff. He may not be as competitive as some of the other guys, but his hockey sense is among the best in this draft.”

“He’s so poised, smart and patient,” a scout noted. “I think his game can be too sleepy at times for guys who want a big, hard defender. That’s not what he is, but he will be a great NHL defenseman.”

“He’s not with Reid, Šmits, Verhoeff for me, likely behind Carels too, but only narrowly,” an executive assessed. “I think around 6-8, the conversation for him starts.”

Malte Gustafsson

A massive riser following a standout performance at the U18 World Championship, Malte Gustafsson has forced his way into the top-tier conversation among defensemen.

“I didn’t see the offense to start the season, but he was so good at the 18’s,” said an executive. “He could go top 10.”

His profile is drawing some lofty comparisons from evaluators who love his physical tools. “There’s a lot of similarities between him and Simon Edvinsson at the same age,” said a scout.

“I think teams are slow rolling him right now,” another scout added. “He’s going to go 8-13. Big, mobile puck-movers don’t last long.”

The centers

The conversation down the middle is focused on three centers with very different profiles: Malhotra, Björck and Tynan Lawrence.

Caleb Malhotra

Because premium centers prospects are so difficult to acquire outside the draft lottery, Malhotra’s stock has steadily climbed into the elite tier.

“In meetings, centers and defensemen, especially centers, always get moved up higher than people expect,” said an executive. “It’s very hard to find good centers anywhere other than the draft.”

That’s contributing to Malhotra pushing up the board.

“He’s the best center in the draft,” a scout said. “His stick and scoring may not get you super excited, but he is a very good player.”

“He’s just coming into his own, his physical development has come late,” an executive said. “It wouldn’t surprise me if some teams had him No. 1. He’s a detailed, two-way center with great skills. In two to three years, he will be a star.”

“Don’t put a ceiling on how high he could go,” another scout agreed. “Honestly, I think some teams will debate him at 1. He has the best chance, even if not the likeliest outcome, of anyone in this draft to become a No. 1 center.”

One scout compared his two-way profile to Caleb Desnoyers: “He may not be as good a two-way player, but he might have even more offense in him.”

However, another scout pumped the brakes on his offensive ceiling: “There’s a lot of buzz about this guy. There are teams who have him comfortably in their top five. I like him a lot, but I would have concerns stepping up that high to select a player I think offensively tops out as a second-line center if it means taking him over McKenna or Stenberg.”

Viggo Björck

Björck’s pure talent is top-five worthy, but his 5-9 frame makes him a tricky projection and a highly debated prospect inside draft rooms.

“His range may be the widest of the top prospects,” a veteran scout said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he goes 5, or if he goes 15.”

“He’s been impressive, if not outright dominant at times at every level he’s played at for years,” another scout said. “Don’t overthink it, he’s a stud.”

“Love the player. So smart, so skilled, so competitive. Plays a pro-style game,” added a third scout. “There are more sure things with some of the centers and defensemen, but right after they go, he should be the next guy up.”

Another scout even argued he belongs in the uppermost tier: “He could be better than Stenberg. He was better than him at the World Juniors, plays a more premium position. He doesn’t have quite as much offense, but he’s more well-rounded and a play-driver.”

“You look at the little guys in the NHL who have success, they are all elite competitors. Bjorck has that in his game,” said an executive.

But size remains the ultimate sticking point for front offices.

“At that size, 5-foot-9, you need to be absolutely convinced,” an executive warned. “If he underachieves a little, that’s a player who will struggle to hang onto a roster spot.

“There’s not much B-game with him,” another scout added. “You’re either getting a top-six center, or a guy your coach will cringe having to play if he’s a small forward without elite offense. In the top 10, I think you need more certainty.”

“The top group, the no-doubters, however many deep you go … it would be tough for us to elevate a 5-9 center into that level,” a scouting director concluded. “Once all those guys are gone, though, Björck is squarely in that conversation. I think he goes 6-12. If he went as high as 5, I wouldn’t even be surprised.”

Tynan Lawrence

While Malhotra represents projection and Björck represents talent, Lawrence’s evaluation is the most complicated of the three centers after a bumpy transition to college hockey.

“What a disastrous decision it was for him going to college,” an executive lamented. “He was in the conversation for us at No. 1 in the fall, now I’m not even confident if he will go top 10.”

“The college level exposed some parts of his game,” a director added. “He’s very fast and competitive, but he can’t make complex plays. He doesn’t see the game very well.”

“He doesn’t really do much in his games, there’s no offensive impact,” another executive said.

However, a vocal contingent of evaluators believes punishing Lawrence for an aggressive development curve is a mistake, leaning on his dominant USHL track record to keep him firmly in the top 10.

“People are overthinking this one too much based on a rushed decision to college,” an executive argued. “He’s a lot like

Larkin in the way he plays. His skating is outstanding, he has a good stick. He’s still a top-10 pick.”

“He’s a dog on a bone,” a scout agreed. “He flies around the ice, great pace, great effort level. His hands and playmaking are average, though, from what I saw in college, but at the USHL level, he looked like a no-doubt top-five pick. You don’t want to erase what he’s done in junior based on a bad half-season in school. He carried Muskegon to a title as an underage.”

Cullen’s quick ascent

Wyatt Cullen used a strong push between the final few months of the season and at the U18 World Championship to vault his name into the premium tier of draft boards.

“He’s physically grown a lot, one of the youngest players in the draft. When he’s healthy, he was the clear best player on the NTDP,” said one scout, with several others echoing similar sentiments. “He has elite skill. He deserves to be mentioned in the top-10 conversation.”

“I think in a few years we’ll be talking about him as one of the best players in the draft,” said one director. “If he was born a few days later and his draft season was next year, I think we would be discussing him as a top-three pick.”

However, his overall production and decision-making this season worried some evaluators, who questioned his off-puck details and consistency.

“His habits are concerning,” said another scout. “He can be a bit selfish, one-way and try too much. I think the lack of scoring reflects that a bit.”

What about the goalies?

The goaltending crop isn’t expected to make noise early in the first round, but a few names have separated themselves for Day 2.

“All the goalie guys were going in to watch Filip Ruzicka towards the second half of the season,” a scout said. “He’s a little unorthodox, but big and talented.”

“It’s between (Tobias) Trejbal and Ruzicka likely for the top goalie. Both probably go in the second round,” another scout said.

“Tobias Trejbal is a late first/early second type of goalie,” said an executive.

However, one executive prefers a different target entirely: “Dmitri Borichev is the guy for me. He’s better than the two Russians (Pyotr Andreyanov, Semyon Frolov) last year. I would take him late first if I had multiple picks.”

But Borichev’s evaluation requires heavy projection.

“Borichev is a tough evaluation,” a scout countered. “He’s talented, smart, technically sound. But he split starts with four guys in the silver division in the MHL. That is a tough body of work to step up high to take a goalie. He would be closer to the third round for me.”