Everyone has opinions about designs for potential clients, and sometimes those opinions can differ from other people’s. I don’t live in a bubble and speak to a lot of scouts, so I’m aware when my opinions on players differ, especially those who post their draft leaderboards. Today I thought I’d highlight some people that I relate to better than others – scouts and especially people in the media – and why I believe in those players. These are “my boys” as there is no better term, although there are many people in hockey who like many of these players.
Nate Danielson, C, Brandon-WHL
My first comparison partner for Danielson in this design process was Dylan Cozens. Since then I’ve gone back and changed it to Elias Lindholm due to the frame differences, but there was a logical reason for that choice.
I’ve seen two right-handed centers that skate and compete well, are of good height, and played in the WHL and similar stat profiles in their draft years. Without telling you who’s who, here’s the production of Cozens or Danielson in their pre-draft in the WHL.
Player 1:
Draft year: 68 GP 33 G 78 pts
Draft year -1: 53 GP 23 G 57 points
Player 2:
Draft year: 68 GP 34 G 84 points
Draft year -1: 57 GP 22 G 53 pts
Cozens is a little taller and was a few months younger at the time of the draft and has become a young star in the league. I don’t think Danielson will be as good as he is. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume he could be a formidable NHL center, and I think the criticism of his performance is a little overblown. I completely disagree with the many claims I hear that Danielson lacks attacking power. When I’ve watched him over the past two to three years, I’ve seen top-notch skill and a player who can make skillful and quick plays. I don’t think he’ll be that great a scorer, but I see good NHL offense as justification for a high pick.
Charlie Stramel, C, Wisconsin Big Ten
Stramel didn’t have a good draft season. From my high rating of the player, based on what I’ve seen over the last eight months, there’s nothing quite like a solid junior world champion. As a qualifying freshman, he was blown away by the college level. In these cases, I found it useful to revisit videos of players when they were still competing against junior competitions. For example, we saw how big the difference can be when Matthew Wood played against youngsters for two weeks at U18.
Watching Stramel’s USHL games, I saw a powerful power forward. I saw a big, fast center that regularly smashed and rolled opponents and provided the secondary offense.
I’m demoting him for his tough draft season. His offense is a concern, and that power-forward element hasn’t always been consistent in college. I see him regularly rated outside of the first round and hear the same from a lot of scouts, but I just disagree with that. He’s a good player and I think he’ll recover.
David Edstrom, C, Frolunda-SHL
I grew to like Edstrom as the season progressed, with a very strong finish in both his SHL game and Sweden U18 team. He’s a 6-foot-3 center who skates well, works hard, and I think will make some, but not great, NHL offensive performances. The player’s main criticism is his lack of skill/result. I remember Joel Eriksson Ek came up as a candidate. I and a few others had questions about his offensive potential. I saw a two-way player but didn’t recognize the ability. The analogies don’t end there, however, as the draft season production of the two players between J20, SHL and the Sweden U18 team is also quite similar. I’m not saying Edstrom will be that great goalscorer but considering how good he looked on PP1 and the skills he showed at the World U18s, how he was scoring points per game in a top J20 team and how Well he did in the SHL, I think he’s got enough offense to be first-round eligible and to be a key part of an NHL team five years from now.
Tanner Molendyk, LHD, Saskatoon-WHL
During this draft season, I compared Molendyk to Mario Ferraro and Alexander Romanov. I made this comparison because all three are excellent skaters and contenders who got beaten in their draft seasons because they were just okay on offense and weren’t very great. Ferraro and Romanov both went to the second round and if their designs were revised they would go to the first round. I expect not every 5-11/6-0 defender will be a good player but I think Molendyk has the talent to be next and I think like Ferraro and Romanov he has enough Puck will have moving into him to skate with excellence.
Tanner Molendyk (Jonathan Kozub / Getty Images)
Daniil But, LW/Dmitri Simashev, LHD, Lokomotiv-KHL
But and Simashev are both top athletes with real NHL tools. But he’s a 6-5 winger who runs very well for his height, has the hands and attacking IQ to generate plenty of offense and has natural scoring ability, including a strong mid-range shot. He’s better than Dylan Guenther of the same age and if you think of the following players as wingers it’s not unreasonable to compare him to Quinton Byfield or Cutter Gauthier of the same age. Simashev is a 6-4 defender who is agile, plays hard and has solid skill/IQ. He is comparable to Jake Sanderson and Simon Edvinsson at the same age. The Russian variable is a complicated subject and I wouldn’t blame anyone for approaching this in any way, but both are clearly top talent in this design.
Arttu Karki, LHD, Taapara-Finland Jr.
Getting the bad out of the way first: Karki is a defensive optional defender whose competition worries me, and the fact that he couldn’t get some liiga games is a big issue in his draft season.
Now for the good. Karki is full of potential. He’s 6-2, runs well, has good puck ability, makes plays and is dangerous from the point. Once you get into the top 25 in this draft, he’s the only defender you can probably say all of the above about. He was an important part of a team that also won the Finnish junior title that season. You have to be patient and work with him, and he may never understand the defensive side of the game enough to become an NHL player, but eventually — and I think that’s an earlier point, I think, than many I speak to have been satisfied with that – I would take that risk.
Gavin McCarthy, RHD, Muskegon-USHL
McCarthy hasn’t had much success in the USHL this past season, but I see many tools that could make him a solid NHL defenseman. He’s got good length, he walks well, he’s quite physical and has an edge in his game. McCarthy played a big role on the USA Hlinka team and showed at this level, in the USHL and with the USA U19 team, that he can at least appear competent on a power play, even if it’s not his forte. I look at him and compare him to Maxim Strbak who could be a late No1/early No2 pick and I don’t see much of a difference.
Daniil Karpovich, LHD, Avto-MHL
Karpovich is a player that fascinates me. He’s a late-born Belarusian who plays in Russia’s junior league rather than the divisions that are most commonly seen. But when you look at its tooling and production, it’s quite fascinating. After the top defenders are eliminated, you have to look for another defender with his skills as a 6-3 player who can run, make stops and provide offense. When I spoke to scouts across the league about him, I didn’t get much support for ranking him high. So maybe it’s a bit of a mirage because of the quality of the competition, but I saw clear traits that should lead to him becoming a good pro.
Scott Ratzlaff, G, Seattle-WHL
Raztlaff hasn’t played every day this season, sharing the net with Canada’s world junior starter Thomas Milic, but when he played I thought he looked superb and like a goalkeeper who can influence a game. I assume Ratzlaff will do well after Carson Bjarnason. Playing on the same team at Hlinka Gretzky in the summer, it was clear that Raztlaff was ahead of him as a player. I understand the concerns about the Pro projection. Bjarnason is 6-foot-3 and Ratzlaff is just under 6-1. Bjarnason is athletic, but Ratzlaff is very athletic. For me he has the high speed that you want from a smaller goalie to be successful in the NHL.
Samuel Mayer, LHD, Peterborough-OHL
Mayer is a third-year eligible defenseman. Its production is identical to that of last year. So why am I listing him on my forum this year and promoting him as a favorite after not listing him last year? To be honest, I liked the player but didn’t stick with my beliefs after receiving negative feedback from many NHL scouts. I’ve always loved what I’ve seen this season and I believe he has NHL potential. He’s tall, competitive, can skate and showed enough blue line poise to have a chance as a pro at moving pucks competently. He played a big part in why the Petes won the OHL.
Matteo Fabrizi, LHD, Red Deer-WHL
Fabrizi’s physical toolkit is extremely appealing. He’s a 6-5 defender who’s quite agile in my opinion. It’s not easy to find this type of athlete outside of the first three rounds, and I suspect Fabrizi won’t be available until late in the draft. Coupled with the fact that he also has some guts in his game, it makes for an interesting prognosis for the pro. I won’t say he has a lot of puck play, but Red Deer had a lot of good defenders and on a different blue line he might have gotten more ice time and a few more points.
(Top Photo by Nate Danielson: Jonathan Kozub/Getty Images)