James Hagens May Slide On Draft Day, But His NHL Upside Remains Elite
There were many good reasons why James Hagens entered the year as the consensus No. 1 pick for the 2025 NHL draft.
The Long Island, N.Y. native dominated at every level leading up to the 2024-25 season, setting multiple records on the international stage before joining Boston College in the NCAA.
Hagens became the ninth player to ever finish with over 100 points in a season with the USA Hockey National Team Development Program, recording 102 points in just 58 games in the 2023-24 season. His 187 career points rank fifth all-time at the NTDP. Later that year, Hagens beat Nikita Kucherov's points record at the U18 World Championships with 22 points in seven games.
With Hagens set to center two of the top players in college hockey just a few months later – Washington Capitals prospect Ryan Leonard and New York Rangers prospect Gabriel Perreault – hype was understandably at an all-time high.
While he didn't produce at the rate many anticipated, Hagens still ended the NCAA season with 37 points in 37 games and was also a standout performer at the World Junior Championship, recording five goals and four assists while playing top-line minutes for Team USA, who took home gold.
Hagens' struggles at the college level mainly stemmed from the physical disadvantages he had against older and heavier competition around the nation. At 5-foot-11, 176 lbs, it was pretty evident that he had difficulty driving inside and getting to the net compared to his dominant days with the NTDP.
This is also reflected in his significant decrease in shooting percentage. Due to his lack of size, generating high-danger chances was much harder and a lot of his shooting opportunities came from the perimeter.
James Hagens' Goals and Shooting Percentage Year-Over-Year
2022-23 (NTDP): 43 games played, 26 goals, 27.5 percent
2023-24 (NTDP): 58 games played, 39 goals, 18.5 percent
2024-25 (NCAA): 37 games played, 11 goals, 7.9 percent
(Stats courtesy of Eliteprospects.com)
While that physical aspect of the game has come more easily for a lot of his peers in this class, there's also an element of luck that comes into play. A player of Hagens' caliber doesn't simply drop off so heavily in goals while also producing at a point-per-game pace solely because of a height and weight difference. And it doesn't change the fact that he possesses the tools of a first-overall talent.
Skating is the foundation of what makes Hagens such a remarkable offensive player. His agility, acceleration, and ability to dictate the pace of play trickles into every facet of his game. He generates a ton of power with his lower body in his own half of the ice in order to be a transition threat through the neutral zone, and possesses the creativity to put together complex rush patterns that can overwhelm defenders.
His crossovers and ability to maximize his weight transfer with each stride is pretty impressive at this point in his development, and will only continue to get better with added strength and pro-level training.
Hagens' skating works as a tool to elevate his playmaking as well. He's able to manipulate the ice in a way that demands pressure from opposing players, leaving wide open lanes for teammates to catch passes and have high-danger scoring opportunities. This is a skill he leaned on a ton this season, and it will make him much more dangerous once he builds on his frame.
Puck control is also a huge part of Hagens' playmaking game. He uses his stick extremely well in placing pucks in small spaces, and he can consistently beat players one-on-one with a variety of skilled moves. He's great at making defenders make uncomfortable decisions, and has a decent enough shot that can make teams pay if passing lanes are closed off.
While the concerns about his size are warranted, Hagens shouldn't have a problem playing center at the NHL level. He's got a good motor and has the hockey sense to know when to apply pressure in the defensive zone without compromising his team's coverage.
There's a lot of Jack Hughes in Hagens' game. Aside from the fact that their physical profiles are almost identical, Hughes is one of the best transition players in the NHL, which is exactly where Hagens thrives. If he earns top-six minutes at an early point in his development, similarly to Hughes, there's a strong chance that he could end up being the best offensive producer from this draft class.
One less explosive season in a transitional year shouldn't overshadow years of dominance. With time to physically mature, there's every reason to believe that Hagens will become a dominant player at the next level, regardless of where he gets selected.
Get the latest news and trending stories by following The Hockey News on Google News and by subscribing to The Hockey News newsletter here. And share your thoughts by commenting below the article on THN.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge approves landmark college sports settlement
The corrupt system of denying payment to college athletes has officially ended. On Friday, Judge Claudia Wilken approved the settlement of multiple antitrust class-action lawsuits that challenged the longstanding refusal of the NCAA and its members to compensate athletes. Advertisement The deal includes $2.8 billion in payments to players over the past 10 years along with payments to players moving forward. This hardly ends the chaos currently consuming college sports. The major conferences have launched the College Sports Commission (which is different from the presidential commission that was under consideration for like a week) to regulate NIL collectives that have in many instances become pay-for-play programs. Here's the problem. Any collective action by independent businesses that restrict the earning capacity of the athletes potentially creates a fresh antitrust problem. Friday's settlement resolves (in theory) the manner in which the schools will directly compensate players. The NIL issue is separate. Advertisement And it should be open season, thanks to the American system of free enterprise. That's why the colleges want the federal government to throw them a lifeline with legislation that would include an antitrust exemption. The only truly effective solution would come from creating a nationwide union and negotiating rules regarding key issues like compensation limits and transfer rights. With that, however, the players would have the ability to secure protections against, for instance, unlimited padded practices and a year-round schedule of intense workouts that leave the players with very little time to themselves — especially relative to pro athletes. So the settlemen isn't the end. It's more like the end of the beginning, with plenty more work to be done.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NCAA's House settlement approved, ushering in new era where schools can directly pay athletes
College athletics is officially entering a new world. A California judge on Friday night a little bit past 9 p.m. ET granted approval to the NCAA's landmark settlement of three antitrust cases, often referred to as the 'House settlement,' ushering in an era where schools are permitted to share revenue with athletes within a new enforcement structure led by the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC. Advertisement Claudia Wilken, the 75-year-old presiding judge in California's Northern District, granted approval of an agreement between the named defendants (the NCAA and power conferences) and the plaintiffs (dozens of suing athletes) to settle three consolidated cases, all of them seeking more compensation for athletes. "Despite some compromises, the settlement agreement nevertheless will result in extraordinary relief for members of the settlement classes. If approved, it would permit levels and types of student-athlete compensation that have never been permitted in the history of college sports, while also very generously compensating Division I student-athletes who suffered past harms," Wilken said as part of the 76-page opinion. Unsuccessful in so many legal battles recently — most notably a 9-0 loss in a 2021 Supreme Court decision — the NCAA and its richest, most influential conferences decided last spring to strike a revolutionary agreement by settling these cases instead of risking a court defeat that might cost them as much as $10 billion. The House settlement will pay thousands of former athletes — playing from 2016-2024 — a whopping $2.8 billion in backpay from lost name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation. Even more groundbreaking, the settlement paves the way for schools, for the first time ever, to directly compensate athletes in a system that features an annual cap and a new enforcement entity that is expected to more heavily scrutinize booster-backed payments. While paychecks can begin to be distributed from schools to athletes on July 1 — the official start date of settlement implementation — the new enforcement entity, the College Sports Commission, an LLC operated mostly by the power leagues, immediately takes effect with Wilken's approval of the agreement. "This is new terrain for everyone. ... Opportunities to drive transformative change don't come often to organizations like ours. It's important we make the most of this one," NCAA president Charlie Baker said in a statement released Friday night. "We have accomplished a lot over the last several months, from new health and wellness and academic requirements to a stronger financial footing. Together, we can use this new beginning to launch college sports into the future, too." Advertisement It means that any new contract struck between an athlete and a third-party entity, such a business, brand, booster or collective, is now subject to the new Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse. The clearinghouse, dubbed "NIL Go," is charged with evaluating NIL deals between athletes and third parties to determine their legitimacy. It puts an end, perhaps, to schools hurriedly signing current players and transfers to new contracts before the approval of the settlement in deals that frontload a majority of the compensation. Contracts signed before the settlement approval and paid out before July 1 were not subject to the clearinghouse or cap, leading to a 'mad dash' in the basketball and football portal. Power conference leaders are targeting a Major League Baseball executive to manage the College Sports Commission as CEO, multiple sources tell Yahoo Sports. Bryan Seeley, a former assistant U.S. attorney who has served for more than a decade as MLB's vice president of investigations and deputy general counsel, is believed to be the preferred candidate for the CEO role of college sports' new enforcement entity. Despite plenty of hurdles in the settlement's years-long approval process, those who negotiated the deal have long expected it to be approved because of the sheer numbers involved. More than 85,000 athletes have filed claims for the backpay and just 600 have opted out or objected to the agreement — a paltry number that did not faze the judge. Advertisement Wiken's decision, coming two months after the final hearing in Oakland, California, puts an end to what was thought to be one of the last looming hurdles of a deal: roster limits. In a concept authored by the power conferences, the settlement imposes new limits on sports rosters, many of which had not previously existed. In a recent filing, the NCAA and power leagues agreed to revise settlement language to permit schools to grandfather-in athletes on existing teams or those who have been cut this year, as well as recruits who enrolled on the promise of a roster spot. College sports is about to enter a whole new era. (Taylor Wilhelm/Yahoo Sports) With its approval, the settlement ushers into college sports a more professionalized framework but one, many believe, that is ripe for more legal scrutiny. Already, attorneys are gearing up for future legal challenges over, at the very least, the new NIL clearinghouse, Title IX and the capped compensation system — much of which can be resolved, legal experts contend, with a collective bargaining and/or employment model that college executives have so far avoided. Advertisement The settlement's approval is only the first in what many college leaders describe as a two-step process to usher in stability in the college sports landscape. Step 2 may be even more difficult: lawmakers producing a congressional bill to codify the settlement terms and protect the NCAA and power conferences from legal challenges over enforcement of their rules. Five U.S. senators have been meeting regularly in serious negotiations over legislation, but no agreement has been reached. Here's an explainer of college sports' new world delivered by the settlement's approval: Revenue-share pool Each school is permitted — not required — to share up to a certain amount of revenue annually with their athletes (the cap). Per the settlement agreement, the cap is calculated by taking 22% of the average of certain power school revenues, most notably ticket sales, television dollars and sponsorships. Advertisement In Year 1 — July 2025 through June 2026 — the cap amount is projected to be $20.5 million. While each school is charged with determining how to distribute those funds, most power conference programs are planning to distribute 90% to football and men's basketball, as those are, for the most part, the only revenue-generating sports for an athletic department. In Year 1, that's about $13-16 million for a football roster and $2-4 million for men's basketball, with the remaining amount shared with women's basketball, baseball, volleyball and other Olympic sports. While the 22% cap will remain the same through the 10-year settlement agreement, the cap money figure will rise based on built-in escalators (4% increase in Year 2 and Year 3), scheduled recalculations (after each third year) and additional cash flows into athletic departments, such as when conferences enter into new, more lucrative television deals or/and begin receiving new College Football Playoff monies. Advertisement Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork told Yahoo Sports this summer that he expects the cap to break $25 million by the time the Year 4 recalculation happens. There are exceptions, though, that can artificially lower the annual cap, most notably up to $2.5 million in additional scholarships that a school offers. Enforcement entity A new non-NCAA enforcement entity — an LLC predominantly managed by the power conferences — will oversee and enforce rules related to the revenue-share concept. The company, College Sports Commission, is expected to be headed by a CEO as well as a head investigator for enforcement matters. The entity is charged with assuring that schools remain under the cap and that third-party NIL deals with athletes are not the phony booster-backed deals so prevalent over the last four years. Advertisement An enforcement staff is expected to be hired to investigate and enforce rules related to cap circumvention, tampering, etc., and are charged with levying stiff penalties. Violators may be subject to multi-game coach suspensions, reductions in a school's rev-share pool as well as reductions in allowed transfers, and significant schools fines. However, the biggest looming uncertainty of the settlement agreement involves a Deloitte-run NIL clearinghouse that must approve all third-party NIL deals of at least $600 in value. The "NIL Go" clearinghouse is using a fair market value algorithm to create 'compensation ranges' for third-party deals. Deloitte is expected to approve or disapprove deals in as little as one day, and athletes can resubmit rejected deals at least once with alterations suggested by the clearinghouse. For example, Deloitte may deem a submitted $100,000 deal between an athlete and third party to actually be valued at $50,000. The player can alter the deal to align with the clearinghouse's suggested figure or the school can cover the difference by accepting a reduction against their revenue-pool cap. Deals rejected for a second time are referred to the CEO and enforcement staff and are then processed through an appeals system via court-overseen arbitration. Arbitration rulings are expected within 45 days, according to the settlement. Advertisement Athletes who lose arbitration cases and still accept compensation in the rejected deal are deemed ineligible. Rev-share contracts Starting with the fall basketball and football signing periods, schools began readying for this new era. Some even signed players to revenue-sharing agreements that begin to make payments on July 1 or later, contingent on the settlement's approval. Other players signed contracts with school booster collectives that featured a clause assigning the contract to the school on July 1. For the most part, the contracts grant schools permission to use a player's NIL rights — a reason for the compensation — but these agreements feature language often found in employment contracts, including buyouts, athlete requirements and prohibitions as well as the freedom for schools to reduce the players' compensation based on their academic standing and performance. Advertisement Already, the agreements are a subject of legal scrutiny. In January, Wisconsin defensive back Xavier Lucas left the university to enroll at Miami despite signing a revenue-share contract with UW. In public statements, Wisconsin has suggested it will pursue legal action against Lucas and/or Miami, which, it suggested, tampered with an athlete under contract. Lucas' representatives believe the contract is not enforceable as it was contingent on settlement approval when signed. The situation is a potential landmark case on settlement-contingent revenue-sharing agreements.
an hour ago
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill.
