By Max Bultman, Corey Pronman and Scott Wheeler
This excerpt is from today’s episode of The Athletic Hockey Show.
Bultman: Hey everybody, Max Bultman here, alongside The Athletic’s Corey Pronman, Scott Wheeler and FloHockey’s Chris Peters for another episode of “The Athletic Hockey Show” Prospect Series. I think this is one of our most fun episodes that we do all year. Corey’s under-23 player rankings are now out.
Let’s start at the very top, though, Corey, because … one of the most interesting things we can say about this list is how much you putting Macklin Celebrini at No. 1 over Connor Bedard does not feel controversial, which a year ago would not have been the case.
Pronman: Well, I haven’t asked fans in Chicago how they felt about that particularly, but when we did a pre-show survey, I don’t think I even sensed there was any angst among this group, right? It kind of feels like we all universally feel Celebrini’s the best young player in hockey right now.
Peters: Yeah. It was kind of funny. We were going around, and we were just like, “Yeah, no, I’ve got nothing to say there.” I mean, you look at the ceiling of (Connor) Bedard and the potential of him becoming a perennial 50‑goal scorer — we’re still feeling very far away from that player at this point, whereas Celebrini walks in and suddenly you’ve got one of the better two‑way centers at his age and then soon, I think, he’ll be one of the better two‑way centers in the game, period.
Bultman: To that point, right: when I watched Celebrini, I noticed him off the puck a ton — consistently going into battles, coming out with pucks against players who are already stars in this league. Bedard, whenever I’ve watched him, he can still make some magic out there, but you’re mainly noticing him on scoring‑type plays. And when he didn’t outscore Celebrini by a wide margin, that gives Celebrini, to me, a really clear edge.
Carlsson vs. Fantilli
Bultman: All right, let’s go to the No. 2 thing on your list that I think is very interesting. We’re talking about a couple of centers who went right behind Connor Bedard. You have Leo Carlsson over Adam Fantilli, Corey. I want to hear from Scott first. What do you think about that at this stage? Because these two have kind of jockeyed since the 2023 draft, really.
Wheeler: Adam Fantilli had a better season. He scored 31 goals in the league last year and took a big step; he was one of the very best young players in the league. And I still think we’re waiting to see that consistently from Leo. If I were ranking them, I’d slot Fantilli ahead of Carlsson. But I will say, I’m in the midst of doing my prospect tiers project — which is kind of a follow‑up to Corey’s, in a way — where I poll NHL scouts. And probably the player that people vouched for the most, in terms of slotting Leo Carlsson in a really, really high tier, was Carlsson. NHL scouts feel the same way that Corey does: that Carlsson is at least on par with Fantilli, if not ahead of him. They really believe he’s a better, more natural playmaker, and he’s got that cerebral quality that Adam maybe lacks.
I think Adam — and just the power that he plays with, the quick twitch, the skating, the presence — he’s just going to be so much for teams to handle. I haven’t seen that sort of presence and imposition from Carlsson. But I can understand this one from Corey’s point of view, in terms of the belief that exists that Leo’s going to pop at some point with his playmaking and his ability to read the game. And that’s never really been Fantilli’s strength — he’s always been more of an instinctual, go‑getter type of player.
Peters: When you look at Corey’s evals and say, “OK, what separated them?” I think hockey sense, Corey, would you say it came down to that as a separating factor between the two players?
Pronman: That’s definitely the thing that Carlsson has over Fantilli. Scott articulated the arguments perfectly. They’re basically neck‑and‑neck; I’m not offended if you went the other way.
For some, the Ducks’ Leo Carlsson edges out fellow 2023 first-rounder Adam Fantilli. (Bruce Bennett / Getty Images)
Peters: Yeah, and then I would say the other way, the way Fantilli plays pops more in terms of the compete level and the different things that he does. The power, as Scott mentioned, is key. I prefer his skating a bit as well — it’s not a huge thing, but still. In terms of what we saw from Fantilli last season, I think that’s indicative of where he’s going. I still don’t have a great feel for where Leo Carlsson is going. The upside is there. I don’t know if he’s figured out what he’s supposed to be as an NHL player yet, whereas I think Fantilli has always known that and hasn’t pretended to be the cerebral hockey player; he’s much more in your face. So I agree that the hockey sense is a separating factor, but I haven’t yet watched a game of Leo’s and come away feeling like I had a tremendous sense of what he ultimately is going to be.
Bultman: My question comes down to this one, Corey: throughout these rankings — and we’ll probably talk about this when we get to the defensemen — I know you place a certain emphasis on how these players are going to translate to playoff hockey. With Fantilli, those traits Chris talked about are loud playoff‑style traits. Given that it’s close, and we’re talking about guys 3 and 4 in the same tier on your list, is that still just a matter of projection where you think in those kinds of games it’s coming for Leo when he’s 25, 26? How do you square that?
Pronman: I still think Leo’s going to be a really impactful playoff‑style player. I know he doesn’t have the physicality that Fantilli does, but this is a 6‑3 center who can move. He’s not overly physical, but he can get to the interior parts of the ice to create offense. I think he’s going to be more than fine in the playoffs. As he continues to develop and gain strength, I think his talent is off the charts — skill and hockey sense to go with the size and good‑enough feet, even if it’s not Fantilli’s quick twitch. The sky’s the limit for him.
Michkov vs. Demidov
Bultman: Let’s stick with the head‑to‑head theme and move to another set of prospects. These two aren’t quite in the same vein — they’re not consecutive No. 1 picks like Celebrini and Bedard or back‑to‑back in the same class like Fantilli and Carlsson — but Matvei Michkov and Ivan Demidov have kind of been linked as the two premier Russian wingers in consecutive drafts. You’ve got Michkov a couple spots ahead of Demidov, still within the same tier. How did you go about comparing these two, especially when we got such a little glimpse of Demidov at the end of the year?
Pronman: They’re close. Again, a couple spots apart and in the same tier. There are distinctions in how they play. Michkov’s, I think, a smarter, more creative player — which isn’t taking away from Demidov, who has off‑the‑charts creativity. Michkov is one of the five or six smartest players up front that I’ve seen in terms of his offensive instincts and creativity. Demidov’s bigger, harder — those are real differences.
Michkov did it in the NHL this year. When we were watching him coming up in the KHL, we wondered, “OK, 5‑9/5‑10 winger, not super fast, not super physical — how does this translate?” And it translated. Will it translate into 90‑ or 100‑point years? Time will tell. But he showed he can play his unique way, and it worked in the NHL, and that’s valuable information. We’ll see how Demidov does in his first year. I love the player; he’s super skilled and super competitive. I think he’s a below‑average skater, and that’s kind of the same profile I had on Alexis Lafrenière, for example. I think Demidov will be much better than that, but until you get it done in the NHL — at the end of the day, that’s what matters, right?
We did a pre‑show survey as well. I don’t think I got much pushback on this, even though I know I’m surrounded by major Demidov fans.
Peters: That’s super fair. Basically, it comes down to the same reason that you did: the overall creativity and uniqueness of Michkov’s hockey sense is the one thing that could potentially carry him into being a special‑tier player over time — even against an outstanding player like Demidov. Maybe they both end up that way. And while there is maybe a larger perceived gap in numbers — like No. 6 vs. No. 10 — I think we’d all agree there isn’t a lot of separation. You’re splitting hairs, even if it looks different on the page.
The Canadiens trio: Slafkovský, Demidov, Hutson
Bultman: The order that you have the top Canadiens guys here, I think, is going to be interesting to discuss. You have Juraj Slafkovský at seven, a few spots ahead of Demidov at 10, and then a decent little gap down to Lane Hutson. Hutson’s still very high up there — he’s right up there with Beckett Sennecke, Anton Silayev, Carter Yakemchuk and Zayne Parekh, all D that went really high. He’s not super far down this list, but he is behind Slafkovský and Demidov by a decent margin. Scott, what’s your first take on that?
Wheeler: That, to me — more than the Demidov‑Michkov debate — was what struck me. Immediately scrolling through the list, those three Montreal guys are such talked‑about names that I was curious to see where they’d land. I would have it probably the inverse. I’d certainly have Slafkovský three, and I would have Demidov and Hutson both ahead of him. But I certainly don’t see a gap between where Demidov and Slafkovský are in the top 10 and where Hutson is at 34. That’s just not indicative of the way I’ve read Lane Hutson over the last little bit.
I think I counted the defensemen — Hutson was 10th amongst the U23 defensemen here, coming off a Calder … coming off not just a Calder, but a historic offensive season in the NHL for a rookie defenseman that age. I don’t think we are going to get to Cale Makar and Quinn Hughes in terms of the conversation about Lane because I don’t think he’s ever going to have that level of defense. But I think he is going to be a pretty singular offensive talent in the league, and I don’t think there are 33 U23 players who fit that description. So the Hutson one was the one I had a bit of a tough time with.
I’m also a little surprised at how high Corey is on Slafkovský. He’s had two 50‑point seasons in the NHL and been a very good player. He has also played with very good linemates, especially last year when he basically played exclusively on that top line. I still haven’t seen (Mikko) Rantanen — or that sort of premier power winger — in the NHL out of Slafkovský yet.
Bultman: In fairness, I think Mikko Rantanen was like a 40‑point player at the age Slafkovský was last year. So statistically, he would be a little bit ahead of where even Mikko was. I’m not saying he’s Rantanen either. I’m just saying Slafkovský is so young at 21 that the projection can still do a lot of work there. Chris, what was your first take on how the three Montreal guys were ordered?
Peters: I was a little surprised at Slafkovský’s spot. We’d had plenty of discussions about him dating back to his draft year, and I’ve never been particularly high on him relative to some other guys. But to your point, Max, two 50‑point seasons at 20 or younger is significant. It’s a good sign of where things are going. I just feel like he’s getting closer to his ceiling than a guy like Demidov, who I feel has a higher overall ceiling.
The question is, is Slafkovský going to become that power guy, one of those players able to impact the game in a variety of ways? I haven’t necessarily seen that yet. I’ve been very high on Lane Hutson and probably would have had him second among the Canadiens guys, with Slafkovsky third. Again, I don’t think it’s a huge gap. The good news, if you’re a Montreal fan, is you have all three of them.
Where is Juraj Slafkovský’s ceiling with the Canadiens? (Michael Reaves / Getty Images)
Bultman: It’s a great system. When Corey and I did those pipeline episodes, Scott, one of the things I said is I can understand Slafkovský atop that list, especially relative to Hutson, because I look at the projection on a 6‑3 guy with potentially point‑per‑game offense, which is what I think Slafkovský could be. I’m not saying he’s a 100‑point guy like Rantanen, but if he’s an 80‑point guy with that size and physicality, that’s harder to find than a really, really good offensive defenseman. I think Hutson is a really, really good offensive defenseman, but it sounds like you disagree.
Wheeler: I think Hutson is a level above a really, really good offensive defenseman. I think of Slafkovský as J.T. Miller, Kirill Marchenko — that sort of 70‑point winger. I think of Hutson as a transcendent offensive defenseman in the league. That isn’t to say he’s the all‑around impact of a Makar/Hughes/(Charlie) McAvoy or the true top 5-10 defenseman. But could he have a season akin to what Erik Karlsson had once or twice? Could Lane Hutson put up 80 or 90 points in a season? I think that’s absolutely within the realm of possibility based on his offensive impact in the NHL last year. And he’s already, on top of that, playing 25 minutes a night.
Bultman: What would the offensive gap have to be between Hutson and Slafkovský for you to prefer Hutson? Because if Hutson puts up the same number of points as Slafkovský, I’d rather have Slafkovský for all those physical elements I talked about. What would the gap have to be?
Wheeler: Even if the gap is close, I still think it’s much harder to find a defenseman to run your PP1, coordinate much of your offense and play 25 minutes a night than it is to find a 17–19 minute a night winger who is one of the better power forwards in the league.
Bultman: If I read you, this — without spending too much time — but if Makar and Hughes are in a class of their own, would you have … (Zach) Werenski, (Rasmus) Dahlin, (Evan) Bouchard, (Victor) Hedman, (Josh) Morrissey, (Adam) Fox, Karlsson (aging out), Thomas Harley, Shayne Gostisbehere — I don’t think Gostisbehere is going to put up quite the offense Hutson is, maybe that’s the line. That’s a solid 10 guys already, and that’s before the more complete guys like McAvoy, (Jake) Sanderson, (Miro) Heiskanen, maybe Harley again. I just don’t know that it’s as rare as we’re building it up to be.
Wheeler: On the other side, you could go Adam Fantilli, Mark Scheifele, J.T. Miller, Matthew Knies. There are tons of very good power forwards. Would you rather have one of those high‑end defensemen who’s contributing for almost half the minutes in a 60‑minute game and driving your offense on the power play, or that really good power forward? You’re taking most of those defensemen over the Millers/Scheifeles.
Pronman: A difficulty with projecting a guy like Hutson is: if you start from a 6‑1/6‑2 defenseman — when we start projecting draft-eligibles Carson Carels, Daxon Rudolph, Keaton Verhoeff into the NHL — you can go into a database and find 30 guys you feel like he could be. When you start from a 5‑9/5‑10 defenseman, the list is like three guys in the league. You may not find a perfect analogy to one of those three. I don’t think Lane Hutson is Quinn Hughes, he’s not Jared Spurgeon, he’s not Samuel Girard — he’s different. Going back five, 10, 15 years — who is the player you think he’s closest to when it’s all said and done?
Wheeler: There isn’t one. And when those guys come along, you have to recognize that he is different. Even if there isn’t a track record of success for that type, he isn’t Girard/(Olen) Zellweger/(Axel) Sandin Pelikka. He just isn’t.
Pronman: The name I thought of has been Adam Fox. Does Adam Fox offend you?
Wheeler: Not at all.
Pronman: Part B of the question is, how good is Adam Fox? Is he a top‑10 defenseman in the league?
Wheeler: Yes, he has finished top five in Norris voting in four of the last five seasons.
Pronman: But people vote based on points; they don’t always vote on who’s actually the best all‑around.
Wheeler: I think Adam Fox is comfortably one of the 10 best defensemen in the league.
Peters: Getting back to Hutson, because we could go down an Adam Fox rabbit hole: in our evaluations, we have to allow for players to be somewhat singular or unprecedented. He isn’t completely without precedent, but there really haven’t been a lot of defensemen who impact the game quite like him. People always asked me who I’d compare him to, and I said I don’t have a defenseman — I think he’s Johnny Gaudreau as a defenseman. High‑end puck skills, deception; he plays the game differently. We know how playoff hockey looks, and we’ll see how his game translates to that. But are we completely positive that the NHL game of today is going to look the same? Will it shift a little more toward this kind of more positionless, all‑over‑the‑place, more offensive approach? If it works, Hutson could be a trend-setter.
Wheeler: I don’t think Hutson has to be one of the 10 best defensemen in the NHL if Slafkovský doesn’t become one of the five or 10 best wingers. Ultimately, you’re taking the defenseman over the winger.
Pronamn: I was going to argue Fox wasn’t a top‑15 defenseman — I was going to keep going — but we stopped there.
Bultman: Then we can piss off two massive fan bases in one episode. Let’s stick on defense.
The 2024 defense class ordering
Bultman: The 2024 defense class — one of the most interesting blue‑line crops in my time covering the NHL, just in the volume and caliber of defensemen. Corey, at the time of the draft, you had Artyom Levshunov No. 1 among D, but you also had Zeev (Buium) really high. So Zeev supplanting Levshunov isn’t a huge surprise. What’s more interesting is that Sam Dickinson has elevated himself above Levshunov, and that Carter Yakemchuk has kind of fallen back to the pack in that group.
Pronman: Yeah, I mean Dickinson was just outstanding last year. In his draft year, there were hockey‑sense questions, and I think there still are minor ones, but in his draft year, you’re like, “Holy hell, this guy makes one or two major mistakes every game. Can he move a puck in the NHL? Can you trust him?” To now: yeah, he makes one or two big mistakes — but he plays 35 minutes a night, so by odds that’s going to happen at some point. He seems to be able to move the puck confidently enough, make enough plays and not hurt his team on enough of a basis — to go with the talent and competitiveness — that you’re like, “Jeez, this guy’s going to play a ton of minutes in the NHL.”
You think of like a Noah Hanifin‑plus type of profile. That’s what you’re hoping for with Dickinson. I kind of expect him to potentially push to be on the Sharks right away this year.
Bones to pick: Individual players
Bultman: We’re going to really drill down on individual players. We’ve done some head‑to‑head debates and themes, but we’ve each got a bone or two to pick with Corey. Scott, why don’t you take the first? Lane Hutson’s off the table — we talked about him enough. Who’s next?
Wheeler: The first name when I was scrolling through — the very first that leapt out at me — was Frank Nazar’s. I know Corey’s typically been lower on Nazar over the years, but if Frank looks like the player we saw at men’s worlds and in the last 15 or so games of the season with the Blackhawks — if he looks like that player for, let’s say, 70 of 82 games this year and is consistently that player more nights than not — then we’re not talking about a player who belongs in the 40s on a U23 list. He’s already been paid in the NHL now: a pretty unique contract with just 50‑something games.
There’s a lot of juice in Frank. I think he’s going to be a top‑six player in the league for the next long while, center or wing. And he has a chance, based on what we saw. I thought he looked every bit as impactful as Clayton Keller, for example. He was one of their very best players at men’s worlds. That really opened my eyes, especially after he finished the year — whatever it was — 12 points in 12 games to close it out with the Blackhawks. There isn’t a ton of precedent with the 5‑9/5‑10 types, but I think he’s a top‑six-type talent. There are guys ahead of him on Corey’s list that I don’t think have a chance to do that. To the point we talked about with Michkov earlier, we’ve seen it with Nazar; we haven’t seen it over a full season, but we’ve seen 20 or so excellent NHL games, plus a men’s worlds where he quickly rose up the lineup and was extremely productive.
Frank Nazar had an excellent World Championship with Team USA this spring. (Michael Campanella / Getty Images)
Pronman: You mentioned the sample size in the NHL, and that’s a variable for me. Watching him as an amateur, I didn’t think he had high, high‑end offense — I always thought he was a speed‑and‑energy‑based guy. He had a fantastic year between the AHL, the NHL, the worlds — huge year. But it’s a small sample in the NHL. He gets a tremendous contract from Chicago. I agree, he’s going to be a top‑six center in the league. But what if Anaheim had paid Pavel Mintyukov last summer? What if Buffalo had paid Jack Quinn based on his one big year? Think of Simon Nemec getting paid right after his first 20 games or so in New Jersey. You want more data.
With Michkov, it wasn’t just that he did it in the NHL — he’d been doing it at a high level for so long. Here, did it translate over a full year in the NHL? That’s more significant. I’d want to see it over a longer sample. But your point holds: if he even comes close to replicating what he did this year and backs it up in the NHL, he’ll be right in the top tiers.
Wheeler: To that point, you’ve got William Eklund and Logan Stankoven — two 5‑8 to 5‑11 wingers — ten spots ahead of Frank Nazar on your list.
Pronman: Stankoven has done it in pro hockey for quite a few years now and has a history of high‑end offense. Eklund’s a tremendous skater — really high‑end — and he’s been productive versus men at a young age and has always rated highly. With Nazar, my issue isn’t that he wasn’t really, really good this year — it’s that I’ve never been blown away by his hockey sense/creativity/playmaking to the point where, as a 5‑10 guy, he’s going to be a top‑line player. I need more information to suggest he’s actually this player. I’m guessing that’s not the case for you — and it wasn’t the case for Chicago, hence where he went in the draft for them.
Peters: One I find interesting — and Corey, you’ve always been a little higher on him, but I was surprised he wasn’t higher here — is Nate Danielson at 42. He’s an interesting player. I don’t have a problem with where he’s at; it’s more about who’s around him. He’s ahead of Nazar here — which I did find interesting — and ahead of some other guys I figured you’d like.
Pronman: When we do this update in six months, we need a rule: no more Hutson, Nazar or Danielson conversation. We have to pick somebody else.
Peters: Then let’s talk about Cole Hutson — kidding. I’m still trying to figure out (Danielson) the player. Corey, in terms of a top‑50 prospect and where he landed, what are the things you’re seeing from him? I just haven’t seen it yet.
Pronman: One of the youngest players in the AHL last year, one of Grand Rapids’ better players, one of their better players in the playoffs. 6‑2, right‑shot center who can skate, has legit skill, plays both special teams, works hard. A lot of traits. I know the skill isn’t eye‑popping, but it’s good skill — legit skill. I think it’s second‑power‑play skill in the NHL — maybe bumper/net‑front type. He has a lot of traits that will translate and will lead to him being a highly effective NHL center for a long time. It’s hard to see him miss, frankly. He checks every box, and some with emphasis. Really natural skater, natural puck handler. He can break shifts open with his puck handling at times. The pace he plays at — he just feels like a really good hockey player. I don’t know what to say other than he doesn’t meet some people’s ideal statistical profile.
But every time I watch him — well, that’s the question I have, and I’m sure Max feels the same way because he’s watching a bunch — it feels like every time you watch him, he’s one of the most impactful players on the ice, right?
Bultman: Yes. And then you look at the score sheet and it’s, you know, one assist or no assist.
Peters: What’s a reasonable expectation?
Pronman: I think 45-55 points with penalty‑kill duty.
Peters: Pretty unexciting player.
Pronman: A manager would kill for a 6‑2 right‑shot center who can skate, scores 50 points and kills penalties.
Peters: They’re literally on every team in the league.
Bultman: Could you envision us having this exact same conversation about Brady Martin in a year or two?
Peters: 100 percent we can.
Bultman: It’s probably the right neighborhood — this is where those guys live.
Peters: It’s also not far from Ryan Leonard. And I think there’s a much more exciting player in Ryan Leonard.
Bultman: We could have this exact same conversation, frankly, about Frank Nazar in a year — if Nazar’s like a 40‑point guy. Conor Geekie’s a couple spots behind. There are a lot of guys of this exact profile in this range.
Peters: Right. I just don’t think Danielson’s in that group. I don’t see Brady Martin in that group either.
Wheeler: How many minutes a night do you expect Simon Edvinsson to play for the Red Wings this year, Max?
Bultman: I would have Edvinsson above Danielson, no doubt. I think Edvinsson’s going to be a 21-22-minute a night guy. He would be my No. 1 U23 guy for the Wings, I think.
Peters: It is interesting — staying on the Red Wings, Corey’s got a number of guys: Edvinsson, Marco Kasper, a couple of guys in that same range. And I have to admit, for each of them, I’m just like, OK, those are good players that’ll help you.
Pronman: (Steve) Yzerman’s been criticized in some ways — you can argue whether they’ve gotten value outside the first round, but I don’t think you could look at any of his first‑round picks and say, “This one’s not going well.” There are no Filip Zadinas in this mix. Lucas Raymond has been on par; Moritz Seider has been on par or better with his draft slot. (Marco) Kasper, Danielson, Axel Sandin Pellikka and Michael Brandsegg-Nygård — they look right where they should have been drafted. It’s hard when you build one piece at a time and you’re not picking in the top five.
Peters: Correct. My question isn’t a criticism of drafting — it’s where you are now. How many of these guys are propelling you into a higher level of competitiveness? Playoffs, yes. I don’t see a path for Detroit to be a Stanley Cup contender in the next 10 years.
Pronman: It’d have to be like a Blues‑type run, where Sebastian Cosssa/Trey Augustine go on some crazy run and the team is a bunch of playoff‑style players who all do really well for a month and a half.
Bultman: I think about the two Islanders teams that pushed Tampa in those two years as kind of where it’s headed. In a best‑case scenario, you could give a really talented team fits, and maybe that Game 7 goes the other way for you. I do agree — they’re headed to being a really hard team to play against that ends up where Carolina is right now, frankly: in the playoffs every year and winning a couple rounds, but having a hard time getting over.
Peters: That might even be lofty, honestly, Max. I think they’re more Minnesota.
Bultman: I’m not saying the next two years — but if everything continues.
Peters: Fair.
Final thoughts
Bultman: All right, let’s wrap there. Corey, I appreciate you sitting in that chair while we pick through, with a fine‑tooth comb, everything you put the work into. I recommend everybody go read the article on Corey’s ranking of the top under‑23 players in the sport. Any final thoughts, Chris?
Peters: Yes — thanks, Corey, for sitting in there. Normally, I’d get fired up a little bit more, but if I’m arguing about the 42nd player on the list, I’m obviously not that fired up. It’s hard to do.
An important thing to remember about these lists: the nature of development is that these are going to change. This is Corey’s view right now. It’s good that we have differences of opinion — it wouldn’t be any fun if we didn’t — and it wouldn’t be realistic if we agreed on everything. We won’t know for years what these guys ultimately become, but you can only go based on the information you have now. All in all, whether we argue or not, I think it’s a solid list.
(Top photo of Adam Fantilli: Ben Jackson / Getty Images)