The April edition of our draft rankings are up and now that everyone has (hopefully) had time to digest them, I figure it’s a good time to do a little Q&A session to get some of your questions answered. For the first time, I actually received more questions than I could possibly answer here; thank you so much to all who submitted questions, and my apologies if I did not get to yours. If I did not answer your question in this piece, please feel free to hit me up on Twitter and I’ll be happy to provide an answer there. With that, I’ll spare you all my usual lengthy intro and get right into it.
Raymond Testa asked a good question to get things kicked off here, with a high-level inquiry about the overall quality of the draft:
This is one I’ve seen pretty hotly debated by folks in the prospect community and across social media all year. My take is that this year’s draft is about average in terms of it’s depth and overall talent level.
I’ve seen some try to argue it’s a very deep draft, which I think is perhaps these individuals falling victim to falling in love with guys they’ve spent a lot of time personally researching. One thing I’ve noticed since I’ve begun doing prospect analysis is eats easier to overrate a draft class when you spend a ton of time researching it, because you inevitably find guys that will go well beyond round one that you end up liking a lot. Conversely, I’ve also seen a lot of people classify this as a weak draft, and I believe that sentiment largely stems from the fact that the 2020 draft is shaping up to be one of the most loaded drafts at the top in quite some time, so relatively speaking this class may seem week compared to next year’s.
As I stated, I feel this is an average crop, and it is similar to last year’s in terms of talent dispersion, but a notch lower in terms of overall quality and depth. Similar to last year, we have a clear top-2, and then a handful of players that all should be impactful skaters at the NHL level one day, with varying levels of upside and risk, but are clearly below the top-2. Also, similar to last year, I think we have a number of highly skilled players that will be drafted throughout the first few rounds, but the order in which they go is highly debatable and often comes to preference of the team/scouts/analyst in charge of the rankings.
Because the 2018 class is still relatively fresh in everyone’s mind, I’ll do a quick comparison of my ranks this year to last year to highlight how they compare in my eyes. I’ll also take this opportunity to answer the following questions from Jordan Smith and my guy Lou, both of who inquired about the quality of Hughes and Kakko compared to the top prospects of previous classes.
In my opinion, Jack Hughes and Kaapo Kakko are the clear, CLEAR, top tier in this class, and while I would very slightly lean Hughes if I had to choose, they are a true 1a and 1b, and wouldn’t fault anyone for preferring Kakko. I would put Jack Hughes on a similar tier to how I viewed Jack Eichel and Auston Matthews at the time of their relative drafts. Both were highly, highly touted prospects with long track records of incredible success with the U.S. National Team Development Program. In fact, when you look at the single season and career records for the USNTDP, it is littered with mentions of all three. In fact, Jack Hughes in the all-time record holder in assists (134) and points (197), and both Matthews and Eichel are in the top-10 in goals and points despite playing considerably less games than many of the others on the leaderboard.
Perhaps even more indicative of the overall talent of the three blue chip U.S. centers is the single season record book, where Matthews holds the record with goals (55) and both Hughes (40) and Eichel (38) and in the top-15. Further. Hughes holds the single season record for assists (76) with Matthews impressively holding down the 4th spot with 62. In terms of total points in a single season, Matthews still holds the record with 117, but Hughes is in 2nd with 116 and Eichel has the 10th best season with 87. I will again reiterate that I view Matthews, Eichel and Hughes all on the same tier in terms of the quality of prospect in their draft years, but if I had to split hairs and rank them, it would go Matthews, Hughes then Eichel; but again, by virtue of being on the same tier, I wouldn’t strongly argue against any order you place the three in.
As far as how Kakko compares, I believe he, Svechnikov and Laine are similarly rated, but have very, VERY, different styles of play. To be completely candid, if anyone tells you that Kakko reminds them of Laine, I’d say that’s probably because this individual never watched either as a prospect, and is just making the lazy comparison because they are both Finnish and both (likely) will end up being the 2nd overall picks in their respective draft classes. Kakko, in my opinion, is a much more complete player than Laine, but Laine’s shot is perhaps the single best attribute that any of these three players possesses.
There are some similarities in the games of Svechnikov and Kakko, as both in my opinion are well-rounded players with no evident holes in their game, and both put up incredible numbers in their draft years in their respective leagues. Svechnikov’s 0.68 5v5 goals per-game in the OHL in his draft year was the highest figure in 20 years, while Kakko’s 22 goals in just 45 games broke Aleksander Barkov’s u18 Liiga record of 21, which took him 53 games to accumulate. If I had to rank them I’d go Kakko, Svechnikov then Laine, but again, I think there are strong merits to having them in any order.
Back to the original question, and my overall comparison of the 2018 class to the 2019 class, I view them as similar, but the 2018 class has a leg up. Once you get beyond the top-2, I think both classes are similar throughout the remainder of the lottery, but the 2018 class was a notch stronger throughout. For example, I had Quinn Hughes at 5 last year and I have Bowen Byram at 5 this year, and I would definitely take Hughes over Byram if both were in the same class. Further, I had Kravtsov at 14 last year—which in hindsight was too low—and I have Pavel Dorofeyev, one of my favorite players in the entire class, at 14 this year, but I certainly would take Kravtsov over Dorofeyev.
When you look deeper in the first and into the second, it’s a similar story. While there are certainly guys I’d love the Rangers to get their hands on with their late first round pick(s) and second rounder(s), I’d lean towards the 2018 players in similar rangers. For example, from 25-35 this year I have a tier of defensemen and wingers that all are talented—such as Cam York, Anttoni Honka, Nolan Foote and Samuel Fagemo—but I’m not sure I’d bet anything of significance than any become impact players in the NHL.
Don’t get me wrong, I feel some of them will become very good players, I’m just saying I’m not confident enough in it to bet something significant on it. Comparatively, in this range last year I had the like of Martin Kaut, Nils Lundkvist, Rasmus Sandin and K’Andre Miller, nearly all of whom I’d prefer over their 2019 counterparts.
So long story short, I think the folks claiming this is a particularly deep or a particularly weak draft are both overstating their positions. I think this draft is about average, and there is certainly talent to be found throughout, but I wouldn’t prefer it over last year’s class and it doesn’t even belong in the same conversation as next year’s class.
Next, we have a question from one of the best personalities in the NY Ranger Twitterverse, Woj:
Okay, I hereby strip you of the “one of the best personalities in the NY Ranger Twitterverse” title I just bestowed upon you, and let God have mercy on your soul.
Woj’s GSN cohort Fitz shortly followed by asking me the following:
Well, my friend, if you read my April ranks, you would’ve seen that I announced that the winner of the 2019 edition of the Ty Smith Memorial Trophy, which is awarded to the player I most adamantly feel is being under-ranked by the prospect analysis community as a whole, and who I will badger everyone about on Twitter until the end of time, is none other than Pavel Dorofeyev. Haha, kidding aside, I have much love for Fitz, but seriously bro go check out my ranks!
One last fun response question before I get back to the real analysis comes from a fellow prospect analyst/enthusiast Sam Stern, who I highly recommend you follow if you aren’t already:
My response (substitute “we” for “I” in the gif”):
I got a number of good questions regarding Arthur Kaliyev—perhaps the most polarizing prospect in this draft class—and realistic Ranger targets for the Winnipeg pick, which I will group together in my response below. The questions from from Jack Llewellyn, Mr. HockeyIsASport (sorry I don’t know your real name) and Kravtsauce & Kakko (sorry I don’t know your real name either) and attorney Mike:
Alright, there is a lot to unpack here, so let’s jump straight in. First and foremost, the reason I’m lumping the Kaliyev questions in with the Winnipeg pick questions is because it is definitely possible that Arthur Kaliyev will be available at the Winnipeg pick. Now, don’t get it twisted, I am NOT saying that Kaliyev SHOULD or WILL fall to wherever the Jets pick will land, but fact of the matter is, just like Joe Veleno last year, he is a very talented player that also has some red flags that make 200 hockey men stick their noses up at. Personally, I think Kaliyev is one of the most gifted finishers in this draft class, is a better playmaker than he gets credit for, is a better overall skater than many would lead you to believe and possesses an overall skill set that should put him in contention for a top-10 pick, and I currently have him ranked 9th.
However, how I feel, and how probably everyone reading this right now feels, has literally 0 bearing on where Kaliyev will be drafted. Fact of the matter is there are legitimate concerns about his compete level and play off the puck, and while I think these concerns have been exaggerated by many, they certainly exist for a reason and these particular red flags are the ones that hockey men take very, very seriously. So, for that reason, it is absolutely in the realm of possibilities that Arthur Kaliyev could have a similar fall to what we saw from Joe Veleno last year, and he could be there for the taking with the Winnipeg pick.
Now, to answer specific questions posed above, yes I can see a scenario where Arthur Kaliyev available at the Winnipeg pick, and I feel he is a guy the Rangers SHOULD target if he is available that late, but I am not an insider, I have no real insight into the Rangers line of thinking here, so I cannot comment on whether the Rangers actually would target him. Even speculating on this is tough, because on one hand the Rangers have proven they are absolutely willing to gamble on talent and upside in this area of the draft (e.g., K’Andre Miller and Filip Chytil), but on the other hand they also show a aversion to players with lower compete levels and the sorts of red flags that Kaliyev has, so I’d say it’s 50-50 on whether he’s a guy the Rangers would realistically target.
Regarding whether it is possible for the Rangers to trade up into the 11-15 range; they absolutely have the picks/prospects/roster players to package with the Winnipeg pick to move into that range, and I’ll get to this more in a bit, it’s just a matter of is Kaliyev a guy they’d personally want to trade up for.
Personally, I’d have no problem whatsoever trading up into the back end of the lottery to nab him if he’s there, but I’m not convinced one way or the other that this is something the Rangers would actually do. I think they certainly will look into trading up, similar to last year, if a guy they love is falling past where they had them ranked, but I’d be lying if I told you I had any real insight into who these players are that they’d be willing to part way with assets in order to move up and acquire.
You can also see above that I was asked specifically about Nic Robertson and who I would personally target with the Winnipeg pick, with the assumption is lands in the late teens. If I was an asshole, my answer simply would be, go look at my rankings, everyone ranked above the pick you are asking me about is someone I’d target at that pick.
Fortunately for you all (and for my wife), I’m not an asshole—well, not all the time at least—so I’ll expand. Nic Robertson is absolutely someone I’d be happy with the Rangers taking in this range. In fact, anyone on my 4th and 5th tiers I would be very happy with taking with the Jets pick. These players include: Matthew Boldy (very unlikely to be available this late), Pavel Dorofeyev (my Ty Smith of the 2019 draft), Bobby Brink, Ryan Suzuki, Victor Söderström (probably won’t be available this late given the way he’s trended recently), Jakob Pelletier, Nic Robertson, Connor McMichael, Thomas Harley, Ville Heinola, Nils Höglander and Philip Tomasino.
I’m not exaggerating when I say I legitimately will be happy with any of those players at the Winnipeg pick, and obviously I’d be thrilled if anyone I have ranked even higher than them falls. There are a few guys on my 6th tier even I’d be fine with in this range, particularly Cam York, Philip Broberg, Anttoni Honka, Mortiz Seider and Lassi Thomson, all of whom are defenseman that I believe possess enough upside to eventually outperform this sort of draft position. I will add that personally I’d like to see the Rangers go with a forward here, as that’s where the value lies in this draft in my opinion, but you won’t see me crying if they go with a skilled defenseman.
Regarding Nic Robertson, I 100% agree with the analysis of Mr. HockeyIsASport. Robertson is a dynamic talent who produced at a very high level, despite having little to work with. Robertson is a good and balanced skater, with excellent agility and edgework. He has a non-stop motor and is strong on the puck despite his lack of size (he’s only 5’ 9’’ and 170lbs), traits that I believe will endear him to many fans. He also has a balanced offensive game, and he possesses a plus shot, good playmaking ability, great ice vision and is phenomenal at skating out of trouble and avoiding hits, thus opening the ice to make plays for his teammates. He would be a very solid pick by the Rangers with their Winnipeg selection in my opinion.
Anyone that read my drank rankings knows that Pavel Dorofeyev is someone I’d be THRILLED with taking in this area. I wrote a few paragraphs on him already, and suggest you check that out if you’d like to learn more.
Bobby Brink is a slightly undersized but highly skilled winger in the USHL that I’ve seen ranked as high as 7 and as low as in the 40s. I’d be thrilled with Brink at the Jets pick; I had a friend describe him as a “devastating offensive talent,” and I completely agree. He has an excellent shot, which includes both a quick and sneaky release and power behind it, but he also has excellent ice vision and playmaking ability, and consistently shows the ability to pass up the easy play for the better play, and out his teammates in a position to succeed. There literally isn’t a single hole in his offensive repertoire as far as I’m concerned. Obviously he’s not a perfect player, or else he’d be a consensus lottery pick, and he does need to improve on his explosiveness as a skater in my opinion as well as his strength and defensive awareness, but these are all things that should come with more time and experience.
If you’d like to see a more thorough breakdown of Brink’s game, I highly encourage you to check out the video profile below by Will Scouch.
The last player in this group here I’ll expand upon a bit is Nils Höglander, as he’s the type of player I could see the Rangers realistically targeting given their recent propensities. Despite being undersized at only 5’ 9’’, Höglander is a consensus first rounder even among more traditional pundits who value size more than myself, so that tells you a lot about the type of game he plays. Despite being an undersized teenager, he played the entire season with Rögle BK of the SHL, amassing 7 goals and 7 assists in 50 games—which are very solid numbers for a player his age. As far as I can tell, the primary reason why even more traditional analysts are somewhat looking past his lack of size is the fact that he has a non-stop motor, is as aggressive as they come and is strong as a bull for someone his age and stature, leading him to appear to play a much bigger game.
However, I’m not someone that worries too much about size, and while I enjoy his aggressive and strong style of play for someone of his size, those are fairly low down the list of the reasons why I am partial to him. Höglander reminds me of Mats Zuccarello with his style of play, but a faster and a bit more willing to shoot version of our beloved Zucc—although I would argue I’d still like to see Höglander shoot more often. He’s fearless, agile and explosive, and is excellent with the puck on his stick both in open ice and in traffic. He has a great release—hence why I’d like him to shoot more—has very good edgework and is a very good passer. He’s also great in transition and defensively responsible, and is a guy I believe will develop into a player that can be trusted in all game situations at the NHL level.
Finally, to specifically answer Mike’s question, I’d be perfectly fine with German defenseman Moritz Seider with the Winnipeg pick, and I’d be THRILLED with Nathan Légaré at the Stars/Lighting pick—the 2nd round versions—and we now know the Lightning pick indeed will be a 2nd rounder. However, my guess is that Mike was asking this under the assumption that one of them would land towards the end of the first, so my answer also would be that I’d be fine with Légaré in that range. I currently have Seider at 28 and Légaré at 32, and both on my 6th tier which spans from 25-35.
Seider is a bit of an unknown as he’s an April 2001 birthday playing in the German pro league. My fear is he’s being a bit overhyped due to his size, standing at 6’4’’ and weighing in at just about 200 lbs. However, anyone who says he is only about size hasn’t watched him play at all or done much research on him. He certainly possesses plenty of skill, although I don’t believe he’s quite as skilled as some others I have in his range. Seider is a good skater and an adept passer with great breakout skills, and he’s posted good zone exit data according to the great tracking work of Finlay Sherratt, sporting by far the lowest failed zone exits per-60 among his peers. However, definitely the most notable feature of Seider’s game is certainly the fact that he is more than willing to use his size to intimidate the opposition. His highlight reels are loaded with crushing hits, and I’ve seen few players his age control the front of the net in the defensive zone like Seider can. It is clear when he is on the ice that the opposition knows it, and knows they cannot get stuck with their heads down.
Nathan Légaré is perhaps one of the more underrated players in this range of the draft, as he’s a consensus mid-second rounder among many of the more traditional analysts I’ve read, despite the fact that he outproduced QMJHL peer Raphael Lavoie, who most have ranked comfortably in the first round. Légaré finished the season with 87 points—a very nice 69 of which were primary—in just 68 games playing for Baie-Comeau, figures that put him well ahead of Lavoie and on-par with Jakob Pelletier. He also was a huge shot generator, leading all in the draft class in shots per-game with 3.99.
In terms of his skill profile, he has a phenomenal net front presence and has great finishing abilities, which are big factors that drive his production. He has a quick and accurate shot, is a good skater, possesses well-above average strength, and isn’t afraid to mix it up in front of the net or along the boards. I’m not sure Légaré quite possesses the overall skill level to project to be a true top-liner at the NHL, but he certainly has the tools to be an effective power forward who slots into the middle six and can move up as needed, and that is a great find when you are talking about picks after 25 or so.
The last batch of questions focus on the topic of trading up in the draft, and come from my Blueshirts Breakway comrade George Obremski and a fan who I assume is rooting for a Hurricanes vs. Golden Knights Stanley Cup Final (apologies for not knowing your real name).
I’ll tackle the question from Go Canes/Knights first, as it will help establish my viewpoint on trading up, which will help in George’s question. The answer to the question for me is that it depends on the draft and it depends on the quality of the team’s prospect pool. In some draft, the talent dispersion is such that there isn’t a significant difference between the late lottery picks and the early 20s picks. 2017 I think is a great example of this, as you had guys like Owen Tippet, Gabe Vilardi, Martin Necas and Nick Suzuki go from 10-13, but after 20 you had Robert Thomas (20), Filip Chytil (21), Kristian Vesalainen (24), Ryan Poehling (25), Henrik Jokiharju (29) and Eeli Tolvanen (30).
Don’t get me wrong, the 10-13 group is a strong crop of prospects, but I think one could easily argue that they would rather have four players from the 20+ group than the 10-13 group. In between these groups you also had a strong selection of prospects, which including Erik Brannstrom (15), Juuso Valimaki (16), Timoth Liljegren (17) and Urho Vaakanainen (18).
So, in a draft class such as the 2017 group, I’d MUCH rather have two of the later first round picks than one mid-first round pick. To put specific names to it, I’d MUCH rather have Filip Chytil and Eeli Tolvanen than Owen Tippett, or even Martin Necas, who is widely considered one of the best prospects in hockey. When you look at most drafts since the lockout, it tends to play out this way, where after a small group of real blue chippers at the top, it really is a crap shoot in terms of where in the first round the best players were selected. Looking at 2018, I’d also rather have two of Rasmus Kupari (20), K’Andre Miller (22), Dominik Bokk (25), Nils Lundkvist (28), Rasmus Sandin (29) or Joe Veleno (30) than only one of Evan Bouchard (10, who I do like a lot for the record), Oliver Wahlstrom (11) or Noah Dobson (12).
So, in general, I think for most draft classes and most situations, I’d rather have the two later picks in the first round than the single pick in the latter portion of the lottery. Further, I even recently tweeted that unless an obvious guy starts to drop, I wouldn’t want to trade up this year either, as I’d rather have something along the lines of Pavel Dorofeyev and Jakob Pelletier than only Matthew Boldy, for example.
However, I think Josh Khalfin (go follow him now if you aren’t already) recently raised a very good point, and it delves into the comment I made about the state of a team’s prospect pool also mattering in this discussion. Josh stated, “In prior draft years I was pretty hesistant to move up in the draft. I feel that when the rangers lacked prospects they needed multiple picks. Now we don’t need as much B/C level guys, I’d definitely trade picks to move up in round 1. Keep later picks to spend on some fallers.”
Despite what I said earlier, I do also agree with this, with the emphasis being on the last part of his comment, “spend on some fallers.” I agree that the Rangers have a bevy of prospects that likely will be NHL players, but only a couple that project to be true impact players. For this reason, if a guy the Rangers believe is a real impact prospect falls a few spots and ends up in the teens, I’d happily move up to grab him.
Further, for this exact same line of reasoning, while the cost is steep, I’d also entertain moving into the top-10 from the Winnipeg pick, but that obviously is a scenario where you need a combination of a lot of assets/draft capital, which the Rangers have, AND a team willing to trade that pick away, which may or may not exist. I know it’s easy to point to Edmonton at 8 and circle them as a team that might move the pick, but at the end of the day, until a credible insider like Bob McKenzie reports a team inside the top-10 is realistically considering moving the pick, I see little value beyond simple entertainment to getting too bogged down in discussions about what it would cost to get back into the top-10.
Last but not least, time for George’s question. For those of you who are unaware, Cole Caufield is a fantastically gifted goal scoring winger that is currently playing for the USNTDP and is committed to play for the University of Wisconsin next season. He is second on the team in total points this year with 93 in 60 games and comfortably the team leader in goals with 67. In fact, this season Caufield eclipsed Phil Kessel’s record for most career goals with the USNTDP of 104, and currently sits at 106 career goals. So all of this sounds like a sure-fire top-10 pick that would require a ton of assets to obtain, correct? Well, he stands at 5’ 7’’ and weighs in at 163 pounds, and while size certainly doesn’t matter in the NHL like it once did, and Alex DeBrincat is similarly sized and coming off of a 41 goal season with the Blackhawks, his small stature does lower him in the ranks of many.
I don’t want to derail this piece at the end with a rant about the role size plays in the NHL, but I will provide my quick take, as I do think it will provide a bit more context to my rankings. I think the argument that I see every day across social media about size has gotten ridiculous, and like many sports and political discussions these days, it seems like most individuals have entrenched themselves at the extreme ends of the argument, with few bringing nuance to the table. Well, consider me someone living in the middle, yelling that there is lots of gray area in this debate and it is not a black or white argument. In my opinion, both of the following can be true: size does not matter nearly as much as it once did in the NHL, but size does still matter.
I think there are plenty of smaller players in the NHL that have proven you can certainly succeed as a smaller player in the NHL, and conversely there are plenty of larger players that have proven simply being big doesn’t cut it anymore. However, you are fooling yourself if you think size isn’t an asset at all. Imagine if Johnny Gaudreau was the exact same player he is today—which is perhaps my favorite player to watch in the NHL and one of the most purely gifted players in the game—but he was 6-foot and 190 pounds and somehow still has all of the speed, agility, maneuverability and skills he currently possesses. I’m sorry, but that hypothetical 6-foot version of Johnny Hockey that still maintains exactly all of the same skills and abilities he has is an even more impactful hockey player than the current iteration, which already is an extraordinarily impactful player.
So long story short, my stance on size is I do not believe it to be the roadblock that it once was, and I put fairly little stock in it when I’m evaluation players, but I also think you are going too far if you think it doesn’t matter at all, and I believe it certainly is an asset, assuming the size doesn’t come at the cost of other attributes (e.g., skating, skill, etc.).
Okay, I swear there was a reason for that other than simply letting you know my view on the size debate. The point of bringing that up is, to the question about trading up for Caufield, I’m not entirely sure the Rangers will need to trade up all that much to take him, and how much they would need to trade up obviously impacts how much I think it would cost and if I’d personally be in favor of it.
Bob McKenzie’s draft rankings are in essence a poll of actual NHL team scouts, and typically serve as a decent barometer for how NHL teams are thinking—at least, more so than rankings such as my own. In his most recent lottery ranks, which went 16 deep thanks to a tie at 15, Cole Caufield was an honorable mention along with Ville Heionola, meaning that Caufield would be ranked 16th or 17th according to these scouts. If this is truly a reading on how NHL teams are ranking Caufield, then its conceivable Caufield could actually fall to the Rangers at the Jets pick, which at the time of me writing this will end up between 18-22.
Now, to be clear, if I were the one making all of the picks for the NHL teams, Caufield would be gone much earlier, and possibly as high as 9 or 10. However, obviously I am not the one making all of the picks, so my opinion means jack shit here.
So, to FINALLY answer George’s question, would I trade up for Caufield? The answer for me depends on where you need to trade up to, and the reasoning for that answers the second part of his question about what it will take. HockeyStatMiner—one of the best follows on NYR Twitter and someone whom I’ve never met but still consider to be a friend of mine—was kind enough to post the following image, listing post-lockout trades involving teams moving up from about where the Winnipeg will be to around the area you’d likely need to move to in order to get Caufield.
So, let’s say the Jets pick ends up at 20th, and Caufield is still sitting on the board at 16. The Rangers would likely need to give up the 2nd rounder they got from Dallas, which according to draftsite.com sits at 49—assuming they don’t win two rounds this year—to move up 4 spots. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable price to give up to assure yourself the opportunity to draft one of the most prolific goal scorers in this draft. However, if the draft gets to 16 and Caufield is there along with a few other players I have ranked around 10, then I’d rather just take my chances and hope one of them lasts a few more spots to 20, rather than giving up a pick that could wind up being someone along the lines of Samuel Fagemo, Yegor Afanasyev or Jamieson Rees.
So, in this situation, if Caufield is clearly the best player available, then I’d be happy to move up, but if at 16 you have the likes of Peyton Krebs, Alex Newhook and Arthur Kaliyev still on the board, then I like my odds enough to land one of them by waiting and holding onto the Stars pick, which can be used to draft at that slot or used to move up elsewhere.
Alright, I’ve already spent about twice as long and written considerably more than I originally planned on this piece, so this is a good place to end. As always, feel free to hit me up on Twitter if you have any questions or feedback for me. In terms of next steps for my draft content, myself, George and possibly one or two other folks at Blueshirts Breakaway will be publishing a two-round mock draft once the draft order is 100% set in stone, and shortly after we will release our final draft rankings before the draft, which takes place on June 21st.
Note – The featured image at the top of the article is courtesy of NHL.com
Author: Drew Way
Diehard New York Rangers fan since 1988! Always has been fascinated by sports statistics, and is a big proponent of supplementing analytics with the eye test. Also a big Yankees, Giants and Knicks fan.