logo
ENFRع
#

Latest news with #NHLers

Markus Nutivaara attempts a return with Karpat after years of setbacks due to injury
Markus Nutivaara attempts a return with Karpat after years of setbacks due to injury

Time of India

time29-07-2025

  • Sport
  • Time of India

Markus Nutivaara attempts a return with Karpat after years of setbacks due to injury

Markus Nutivaara (via Getty Images) Veteran ex-Columbus Blue Jackets defenseman Markus Nutivaara is returning at the professional level after a tumultuous injury-compelled retirement. The 31-year-old signed a one-year contract with his hometown Liiga powerhouse, Kärpät. It's the first official on-ice activity since he played one game for the Florida Panthers in October 2021, a contest that capped his long battle with nagging hip injuries. Markus Nutivaara signs with hometown Kärpät after hip surgeries Markus Nutivaara, a reliable blue liner for the Columbus Blue Jackets, will be lacing up his skates once again in Oulu, Finland, with Kärpät. The Finnish defenseman has not appeared in professional hockey since Oct. 29, 2021, when he played roughly seven minutes for the Florida Panthers. Although he had one assist in that single game, the play occurred during a tough time for him to bounce back from his initial hip surgery, a process that ultimately led to his retirement from the sport. In a nutshell, after being an unrestricted free agent for two years, in 2022, Markus Nutivaara signed a one-year contract with the San Jose Sharks in hopes of getting his seat back in the NHL. As it turned out, nagging hip issues kept him off the ice in any capacity with the Sharks. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo He officially retired after that, and he is now signed up nowhere but also out of commission for over two years. What about Markus Nutivaara's hip surgery? Kärpät stated that Markus Nutivaara just underwent another serious surgery—this time to insert an artificial hip joint in November 2024. Having experienced pain-free rehabilitation, he has decided to give it a shot at returning to the sport that made him a sensation in both Finland and the NHL. Nutivaara entered the national radar during his first year in 2014–15 as a member of Kärpät, winning the Liiga championship. That team featured future NHLers Joonas Donskoi and teenage Sebastian Aho. Nutivaara accounted for six points in 16 playoff games that championship season. Also read: From Panthers to Prague: NHL forward Peter Mueller retires after 16-year rollercoaster across hockey's biggest stages Markus Nutivaara's return to Kärpät is more than a homecoming—it's a personal triumph after years of physical and mental hurdles. Whether he can return to competitive form remains to be seen, but his recovery from a series of major surgeries is already a win. As the Liiga season approaches, all eyes will be on Nutivaara's progress, making his comeback one of the most heartening storylines in European hockey this year. FAQs When was Markus Nutivaara born? 6 June 1994 Where is Markus Nutivaara from? Finland With which team did Markus Nutivaaramake his debut? Oulun Kärpät Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!

CHAUDHRI: Should hockey players acquitted in sex assault case get their NHL jobs back?
CHAUDHRI: Should hockey players acquitted in sex assault case get their NHL jobs back?

Toronto Sun

time26-07-2025

  • Sport
  • Toronto Sun

CHAUDHRI: Should hockey players acquitted in sex assault case get their NHL jobs back?

Four of the five former world juniors were NHLers until they were charged and the league says they're ineligible while the findings are reviewed From left, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dube, Cal Foote and Michael McLeod enter the London courthouse on May 20, 2025. Photo by Mike Hensen and Derek Ruttan / The London Free Press Not guilty is not the equivalent of innocence. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account In a decision that has rocked the nation, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube, Michael McLeod and Cal Foote were collectively acquitted last week on all sexual assault charges stemming from an incident dating back to June 2018. Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia found the evidence of the alleged victim, E.M., was not credible or reliable. While my Toronto Sun colleagues have gone to great lengths to provide play-by-play analysis of the trial, dissect the evidence, and report the decision, as a civil litigator and employment lawyer, my focus is on the path forward for these newly acquitted players. Is there a professional career for any of them to return to? Four of the five men charged were active NHL players at the time of their arrests in 2024. Each was granted a leave from their clubs after they were criminally charged. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Following the decision this week, the NHL said the five men would be ineligible to play while the league reviews the findings. The NHL described the evidence at trial to be 'disturbing.' Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alexandar Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Callan Foote are shown in court in this courtroom sketch made in London, Ont., on Wednesday, April 23, 2025. Photo by Alexandra Newbould / The Canadian Press The NHLPA, however, argues the players should have the opportunity to return to work and that the NHL's position runs afoul of the terms of their collective bargaining agreement. My cursory review of the collective agreement confirms that the NHL commissioner has broad disciplinary authority for off-ice conduct that is 'detrimental to or against the welfare of the league or the game of hockey.' This can include the termination of a player's contract. The collective agreement even confirms that the commissioner can apply these powers whether the criminal charges result in a conviction or not. So, theoretically, the league would be within its right to deny the five players a chance to return to the ice. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But there's a major wrinkle. Before initiating discipline for off-ice conduct, the collective agreement also requires the NHL to have conducted an investigation into the allegations. This is where things may fall apart for the league. E.M. sued Hockey Canada, among others, for $3.55 million in 2022. A financial settlement was paid out to E.M. months later by Hockey Canada via a 'reserve fund.' Read More When the payment to E.M. was uncovered by the media, Hockey Canada issued a statement in 2022 stating, in part, 'We know we have not done enough to address the actions of some members of the 2018 national junior team or to end the culture of toxic behaviour within our game.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Only after settling the civil suit with E.M. and being exposed did Hockey Canada respond to the public outcry by initiating an investigation. How seriously would an organization investigate a case that it already settled and involved allegations that were four years old? A core principle of the rule of law is procedural fairness. If in one's employment a person may be subject to discipline, then they are entitled to know the allegations against them and be provided the opportunity to respond. There was no record of the players being investigated by the league prior to the E.M. civil case being settled. To open an investigation after the settlement occurred denied the players an opportunity to challenge the allegations with their own evidence. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. This very fact alone could be a strong ground of appeal if they are not allowed back into the league. It is no question that the evidence in this case supports a dysfunctional, power-bro culture within the world of hockey. The NHL is right when it says the allegations were 'disturbing' and the behaviour at issue was 'unacceptable.' But why did the NHL ignore said allegations when they lay at the league's very doorstep? To make a statement with any thread of conviction only when the world is watching isn't just gratuitous, it's plain wrong. It is much too late for the NHL to virtue signal in this case. And perhaps it also is too late to reasonably deny these five players a chance to return to their careers. Botched internal investigations do not mean there was no wrongdoing. But they can dull the knife when it comes to consequences. Perhaps through the gaping holes in the investigation of this case the players will be welcomed back into the league. But industries rise and fall on public perception. The NHL's future is only as strong as its supporters. We should know soon if now will be the time of reckoning or a return to the status quo. Have a workplace question? Maybe I can help! Email me at sunira@ and your question may be featured in a future column. The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice. Columnists Toronto & GTA Columnists Sunshine Girls Columnists

Re-drafting the 2022 NHL Draft: Logan Cooley, Lane Hutson lead Scott Wheeler's do-over
Re-drafting the 2022 NHL Draft: Logan Cooley, Lane Hutson lead Scott Wheeler's do-over

New York Times

time23-07-2025

  • Sport
  • New York Times

Re-drafting the 2022 NHL Draft: Logan Cooley, Lane Hutson lead Scott Wheeler's do-over

Welcome, for an eighth straight year, to my annual re-draft and ranking review exercise. Each summer at The Athletic, I re-draft the class of three years prior and begin to review my draft board against the draft order. The goal is twofold: providing you with updated evaluations and projections of the players, and measuring where I was on each of them relative to NHL teams as a litmus test of what I got right and wrong. Advertisement While three years obviously isn't the finish line for these prospects, I believe it's the earliest point of re-entry for some takeaways. These players are almost all now 21 or 22 and either established as NHLers or approaching the end of their prospect lifecycle. This piece — along with my guide to scouting and my annual players I got wrong column (out earlier this week) — is one of several I produce each year to audit my work, my process and my results. It has never been lost on me how different my job is from that of an NHL scout. Theirs is an unenviable one done under an internal and external microscope, where review and criticism of their choices determine their livelihood. When they stick their neck out on a prospect, it can come with real-world consequences if that player doesn't pan out. It's a cutthroat business where most prospects' odds of not making it are greater than their odds of NHL success, and where most scouts live under the constant pressures of short contracts. While my job comes with its own form of public criticism and my livelihood is determined by the quality of my work in its own way, the stakes just aren't as high. I get into the same rinks, watch the same tape and talk to the same people about them before building my list. But I don't actually have to make picks. I do still have to earn your trust, though. That's especially true at The Athletic, where you're paying to subscribe. If you're going to spend your money to read our work, you deserve to know that you can count on it to be not only well-sourced and researched, but also transparent. The rankings and evaluations you read are only as good as the time, energy and purported expertise that fuels them. And the 2022 draft was a good test because of both the impacts of the pandemic on the 2003 and 2004 age groups and there not being a consensus No. 1 prospect then or now. Let's look back at how I did and how it would change today. Actual draft pick: No. 3 (change: +2) to Arizona My final ranking: No. 3 (change: +2) Cooley leads the 2022 class in goals (45) and goals per game (0.29), and leads its forwards in assists per game (0.41) and points per game (0.69, or 57 points per 82 games through his first two seasons). He's also the only player in the class who is his team's first-line center, the only player in the class who has a 25-goal season and one of only two players in the class with a 60-point season after registering 65 points in 75 games last year (second to Clayton Keller in team scoring). He has skill and pace as a playmaker, but he's also a driver who plays a competitive game that includes the guts of the ice and he played to positive on-ice and relative results with Utah last year. Advertisement There was a time in his draft year when I debated ranking him No. 1, and in hindsight, I wish I leaned into it. I had a five-player tier at the top of the 2022 class, which is the biggest I've had in coming up on 13 years of doing this work. That group was four players for most teams and should have been for me (we'll get to the fifth player in a little bit), but I think Cooley stands atop it now and that his biggest challenger is actually from a long way outside it, all the way at the back of the second round, which brings us to … Actual draft pick: No. 62 (change: +60) to Montreal My final ranking: No. 19 (change: +17) What's more valuable, a good but not superstar first-line center, or an elite offensive defenseman? I think there's a case to be made either way, and debated re-drafting Hutson at No. 1 here, but I leaned Cooley for now (I could see myself switching when I redo this at the decade mark, though) and think the league probably would too, rightly or wrongly. This is one I'm proud of, though, because it's easier to find ways to talk yourself out of picking a player who profiled like Hutson did at the time than it is to stick your neck out for him (see: the other 31 teams talking themselves out of it and even the Habs taking Filip Mesar and Owen Beck before they took him) and I've stuck my neck out for him again and again over the years and trusted and nailed my evaluation of the player. Here's an excerpt from my report on Hutson at the time: 'The reality is there aren't many defencemen Hutson's size who play in the NHL, even as the game changes. And those guys have never been selected in the first round. But there aren't many players who play like Hutson in hockey either. I often get asked just how high he'd go if he were 6-foot-3 and the reality is that he wouldn't be able to do a lot of what makes him so interesting at that size. He's a unique player who uses a light (though not powerful) stride to create entries and exits, weave past coverage, escape pressure, and find or create seams. Advertisement 'He sees the ice as well as anyone in the draft, regularly identifying plays a step ahead of the opposition. He has an uncanny knack for executing long east-to-west plays, whether that's feathering high, leading saucer passes with perfect weight cross-ice or flinging a hard pass to a streaking teammate's tape. He makes a ton of plays under pressure when other players would panic (though sometimes he could actually use some hurry-up to his game haha). 'Inside the offensive zone, though his shot lacks power, he acts as a fourth forward with his ability to slide off the line and create. He's got shakes and shimmies to spare, routinely making opposing defenders miss one-on-one in all three zones. He's one of the most clever players in the draft. And while his size will continue to make evaluators pause, I actually quite like the way he defends. He gets back to so many loose pucks that he doesn't have to rely all that much on engaging in battles and even when he does, his positioning and active stick help him disrupt opposing carriers and break up plays. 'But above all else, he's the kind of player where when you think you've put him in a difficult spot or you've got him cornered, he'll show you that he isn't with a spin (or a spin into a spin!), a fake (with his eyes, or head, or shoulders, or hands, or feet, or each) or his sublime vision through layers. He just looks right past what's in front of him. 'I'm fascinated to see where he's picked, because I wouldn't shy away from taking him in the late first and if he's around on Day 2 it'd be a no-brainer for me.' Nailed it. Actual draft pick: No. 1 (change: -2) to Montreal My final ranking: No. 5 (change: +2) When I included Slafkovský in my players I was wrong about column last year, I wrote that 'When I look back at where I was at on Slafkovský pre-draft and actually read over my report, I think it 1) had the player from a makeup/skills perspective accurately scouted and depicted and 2) was quite measured in its analysis and projection' and 'You don't rank a player in the top five and in the top tier of a draft class if you don't see serious upside.' Advertisement I also wrote that I could live with having Cooley, Shane Wright and Simon Nemec ahead of him because, even with the benefit of hindsight, I think my process in slotting those players above Slafkovský was sound. I confessed in that piece that it was Matt Savoie at No. 4 that I really missed on, though, and wondered if I should give more consideration to draft range and the way it will influence a player's opportunity, development, usage and ultimately success in my projections. For a long time, I thought about my projections exclusively in my own terms/the way I viewed the player's upside. But I knew that Slafkovský was in the conversation at No. 1 for Montreal when I published my list and I knew that Savoie was going to go closer to No. 10 and that does influence what follows (i.e., getting an opportunity to play on a first line with Nick Suzuki and Cole Caufield, who Montreal was wise to play him with). Slafkovský was also just a better player and prospect, but I've thought about that ripple (the way their players are viewed by others) a little more in shaping my own evaluations since. It's a delicate balance because the danger is that you stop trusting yourself and groupthink takes over, but at the very top of the draft in a scenario like 2022's where Slafkovský was going to go No. 1 or close and Savoie wasn't, that was going to give Slafkovský a leg up and a higher chance of success, which is what I'm ultimately trying to project. Actual draft pick: No. 4 (change: none) to Seattle My final ranking: No. 1 (change: -3) It felt like people were starting to write Wright off (pun intended) and then he had a really solid first full season in the NHL last year, registering 44 points in 79 games and finishing fourth on the Kraken in scoring and tied for fourth in the 2022 draft class with Cutter Gauthier (who played three more games than he did) and ahead of Marco Kasper, Jiri Kulich and company. He shot 20.9 percent, and that'll regress, but his minutes should also go up (he played just 14:04 per game). He also did it as a center who played to respectable defensive results and is known for his detail and commitment off the puck. He's going to have a long career as a very good player in the league still, even if we're never going to look back on him as a No. 1 pick/exceptional status type. I think overexposure has also resulted in overanalysis of Wright, including by fans. I think I over-accounted for that at the time and that I knew deep down some of the offensive ceiling/lack of dynamism would make it difficult for him to stay at No. 1 on my list if I ranked him there, though. As for where to rank him here, there are two top tiers in this re-draft for me: 1-3 and 4-12/13. I thought about re-ranking him a little lower here, and some would, but he belongs firmly in the second tier for sure, and I think at the front of it somewhere. Advertisement Actual draft pick: No. 5 (change: none) to Philadelphia My final ranking: No. 18 (change: +13) Gauthier is another one that I've already written about in my players I was wrong about column. He was a difficult evaluation for a few reasons. Scouts weren't sure if he was a center or a winger (I put too much emphasis on assigning him as a winger). He also played on a line with two other top prospects in Cooley and Jimmy Snuggerud, and there were constant questions about who was driving whom, and who the benefactors were from the talent around them. His statistical profile was also good but not great (other teammates, such as second-line driver Rutger McGroarty and third-line running mates Frank Nazar and Ike Howard, had out-produced him for most of those two years as well). The place where I miscalculated, though, was in not giving enough credit to his second-half push from the teens into becoming a top-five pick. And that — not reacting quickly enough when players take a big step late in the process — has been a common issue on my lists (see also Moritz Seider and Jake Sanderson, my two biggest misses ever) that I'm now much more aware of. I think I had the profile right on Gauthier, too. I captured his strengths, game, style and projection. I wrote at the time that I understood the top-10 case and would start to consider him around there. But I didn't think he warranted a top-five selection, and a couple of minor missteps in my process led to me slotting him a full tier below where he belonged, which isn't a minor mistake in the end. I also should have known that in a weaker class, the potential 30-30-60 player with size, even if that player is a winger, was a top talent. Actual draft pick: No. 13 (change: +7) to Chicago My final ranking: No. 11 (change: +5) I thought about ranking Nazar behind the three defensemen who follow him on this list. I think the three forwards who follow them could all have comparable or better careers, too. But I can't talk the talk about needing to be more nimble in recognizing when guys take a step and not give real weight to what we saw from Nazar in the spring. He had six goals and 10 points in his last 11 games of the season and then followed that up with an excellent showing at men's worlds, registering a team-high six goals and 12 points in 10 games to help Team USA to a gold medal. Advertisement I think it matters that he's going to be put in a position to be a top-six player who is relied upon to produce next season in Chicago, too, especially when he has now shown that he can play with top players and make things happen with his skating and skill both in the NHL and at men's worlds. His game still has some areas that need work and he's going to have to prove that he can be more consistently impactful on and off the puck across a full 82 games, but even if I were to slot him at the bottom of the range I considered here, it's still above where he was drafted and right around where I had him ranked. Actual draft pick: No. 2 (change: -5) to New Jersey My final ranking: No. 2 (change: -5) I'm sure there will be some who think this is a little high. But I'd argue that that perception is driven mostly by where Nemec was drafted. If he were taken No. 7 and had had three very successful seasons for an 18-20-year-old D in the AHL, and had registered 23 points in 87 NHL games at his age, and had played well in playoff games, the perception would surely be a little different. Despite some of the ups and downs and the ongoing crowd on the Devils' blue line, there have still been some real high highs for Nemec in the NHL, AHL and at men's worlds, and I predict that he takes a step this season between the NHL and the Olympics and goes on to have a long career as a productive top-four D in the league. Actual draft pick: No. 12 (change: +4) to Columbus My final ranking: No. 13 (change: +5) I still don't think people realize how good Mateychuk is. The 5-foot-11/6-foot defenseman has had a tougher time cutting through in recent years, but Mateychuk has been one of the very best players in his age group for as long as I've watched him. He stepped right out of junior and into being a top D in the AHL and one of the best rookie D in the NHL right away last year. He was drafted where Josh Morrissey was and had a better first pro season. I don't think a similar path as a 30-something point D who breaks out for more in his late-20s like Morrissey is out of the question here, and moving on from David Jiricek cleared the path for him to continue to be prioritized (though it was already pretty clear that he'd leapfrogged Jiricek even before the trade). I'd listen to arguments for Mateychuk behind the next few players on this list, but I'd stop there. At his floor, I think we're probably looking at a better version of what Rasmus Sandin is on a good Capitals team. Actual draft pick: No. 25 (change: +16) to Chicago My final ranking: No. 52 (change: +43) Advertisement There are some who would probably argue that it's a little overzealous to slot Rinzel ahead of two players in Kasper and Kulich, who just had really solid full rookie seasons in the NHL, and his former University or Minnesota teammate Jimmy Snuggerud, who has a deeper pedigree and was immediately really good for the Blues in the Stanley Cup playoffs in the spring. But I think the excitement around what Rinzel showed in college over his last year and a half there and in the NHL himself in the spring is warranted. He's a 6-foot-4 D with all of the pieces of the puzzle, and they've come together for him really quickly — passing Kevin Korchinski and, in the eyes of some, Artyom Levshunov, in a blink. I saw the raw outlines at the time but erred on the side of caution re: the work that needed to be done and how unproven he was. The Blackhawks took a swing, and it has paid off. Actual draft pick: No. 8 (change: -2) to Detroit My final ranking: No. 24 (change: +14) I think all of Nazar, Nemec, Mateychuk, Rinzel, Kasper, Kulich and Snuggerud could probably be sorted any way you like from No. 6-12 in a re-draft. I'm sure the Red Wings would just take him again at No. 8, too. Kasper was always going to become a real solid, effective NHL player. In a weaker draft, I should have given that more value. If the me of 2025 were back in 2022, I would have had him higher even without hindsight. I might not have landed on him at No. 8 today still, but he would have been in the ballpark. Actual draft pick: No. 28 (change: +17) to Buffalo My final ranking: No. 22 (change: +11) I think Kulich and Snuggerud are very, very close as players and prospects now, and were then, and I kept flipping them both in this do-over. I leaned Kulich because of his larger NHL sample and that he did it predominantly as a center, but it's very, very possible that Snuggerud goes higher when their careers are over. Proud of my evaluation on this one over the years. Actual draft pick: No. 23 (change: +9) to St. Louis My final ranking: No. 26 (change: +14) Jimmy Snuggerud is a good hockey name and Jimmy Snuggerud is a good hockey player. That's kind of what it has always come down to with him. He has above-average tools across the board and higher-grade ones as a shooter. He's going to have a long career as a solid second-line caliber winger, and I could see a couple of years in there where he's more than that. If he is, he's a top 10 or close re-draft guy all day. Advertisement Actual draft pick: No. 10 (change: -3) to Anaheim My final ranking: No. 25 (change: +12) Mintyukov has always been a complicated, polarizing evaluation for scouts. And while I don't think Greg Cronin got the most out of him and found his on-and-off healthy scratches last year to be odd after an all-things-considered very positive rookie season, it's not surprising that his game didn't match with a coach either. I felt like there was a top 12 that you could feel better about at this stage, but that once you got into that next range of players, he was the clear No. 13 for me at this stage. The talent and ability are still there and always have been. His game does still have some of the same areas of improvement it had a few years ago, though. Actual draft pick: No. 6 (change: -8) to Columbus My final ranking: No. 6 (change: -8) Jiricek is a player that I was in line with the consensus on ahead of the draft and then quickly turned on when the backwards skating/pivots didn't show any notable signs of improvement. Three years later, they're still an issue, too. He has most of the rest of the makings of an impactful, even commanding NHL D in a lot of ways. This rating is still counting on the feet taking steps they may never take, though, and if they don't, he'll fall further. There are quirks about all of the players left, though. Actual draft pick: No. 24 (change: +9) to Minnesota My final ranking: No. 12. (change: -3) Yurov is one of the more underrated NHL prospects right now for me, and a player I'm confident would have more cachet and notoriety had he played in North America or a couple of World Juniors. His successful move from the wing to center has further sold me as well — and gave him the edge over some of the wingers that slot in the late teens just after him here). I'm looking forward to NHL fans getting introduced to him next season. Actual draft pick: No. 31 (change: +15) to Tampa Bay My final ranking: No. 10 (change: -6) Advertisement I think I was a little high on Howard and the consensus was a little more too low on him, if that makes sense. I saw the talent, scoring and production on a deep team where he wasn't always first over the boards and believed that in a weak draft, he was one of the only forwards with top-six upside. I also thought he was harder working than he got credit for. Most NHL scouts saw a sub-6-foot winger (I always thought he was stronger than his listing) with a boom-or-bust profile and worried about him being a net-negative defensively. Then there was the unique swagger, which, in getting to know him, I always appreciated but put some others off. I think both sides were justified in coming to the determinations they did. There are some even today, after his Hobey Baker season and some noticeable improvements in his habits and off-puck play, who wonder if his value has peaked and question whether his game will work in the NHL. I still think he's going to be a second-line scorer and that this is the right adjusted range for him. He and the next player share some of the same profile questions and concerns as well, so I think it's appropriate that they're back-to-back here. Actual draft pick: No. 15 (change: -2) to Vancouver My final ranking: No. 9 (change: -8) See above, more or less. Scoring. Skill. Confident, some consider cocky. A 5-10/11 winger with off-puck questions. This is the range for that player at this stage in the re-ranking for me. Actual draft pick: No. 18 (change: none) to Dallas My final ranking: No. 51 (change: +33) See this week's players I was wrong about column for more on my Bichsel evaluation. Actual draft pick: No. 9 (change: -10) to Buffalo My final ranking: No. 4 (change: -15) I was obviously too high on Savoie and underestimated the role his 5-foot-9ish frame would play him sticking at center and impacting at the NHL level. I really liked what I'd seen in the AJHL, USHL (all-rookie team during the pandemic season) and then WHL (41 goals and 102 points in 75 combined regular-season and playoff games as the leading scorer on a Winnipeg Ice team that featured Connor McClennon, Conor Geekie, Mikey Milne and Zach Benson). He was one of the better skaters in the draft. He was a driver with his work ethic. He made plays off the rush and inside the offensive zone. I'd spoken with folks in Sherwood Park, Dubuque and Winnipeg about him and knew he was a standout athlete and strong for his size, and I gave that too much clout. My top tier should have been four players, not five. Advertisement Savoie was still a top young player in the AHL as a rookie last season, though, finishing second in U21 scoring with 54 points in 66 games (behind only Bradly Nadeau's 58 in 64), and I expect he becomes a contributing middle-sixer in the NHL who can play PK2 and PP2. Actual draft pick: No. 7 (change: -13) to Chicago My final ranking: No. 15 (change: -5) Korchinski is a player who has pretty clearly been impacted by the CHL-NHL Agreement prohibiting 19-year-olds from playing in the AHL. He wasn't ready to play in the NHL when he did, and it has stunted his progress and allowed some others to leapfrog him now. Still, I think I had him in the right spot at draft time as his game had some practical flaws and quirks that should have kept him out of the top 10. He's still going to be an offensively inclined five-on-five contributor and power-play option, but I wonder if he'll have to be moved to realize his full potential now that Rinzel and Levshunov appear in line to run the Blackhawks' power plays. He needs to develop more of an identity and get back to playing freer as well. Actual draft pick: No. 14 (change: -7) to Winnipeg My final ranking: No. 16 (change: -5) It's kind of ironic that McGroarty ended up with the Penguins here as well. They obviously used this pick on Owen Pickering. McGroarty has always been one of the top players in his age group and almost all of his tools are NHL quality (shot, hands, smarts, frame, strength, etc.). He has never been a great skater, though, and the adjustment early on last year to pro pace was steeper than a player with his pedigree in college, internationally and at the NTDP would typically have in the AHL. He figured it out and really came on as the year went along, though, and he's now got a chance in front of him to start in the Penguins' top nine this year. It'll be important for him to prove he can hang and never go back. He's going to have a long career still. Actual draft pick: No. 53 (change: +31) to Anaheim My final ranking: No. 32 (change: +10) Advertisement If you've followed my work, you'll know that I've been very high on Luneau for a very long time, even through the complicated knee troubles and the infection. Today, I believe he's one of the most underrated prospects in hockey, and I actually debated ranking him a little higher here. He was one of the best defensemen in the AHL last season, has looked the part in the NHL and is clearly ready to play in the league full-time. I'm really happy with my evaluation of Luneau over the years. I think he's going to have a long career. I think he was nitpicked a little too much pre-draft as the No. 1 pick in the Q (especially considering what he played through). Actual draft pick: No. 16 (change: -7) to Buffalo My final ranking: No. 23 (change: none) Ostlund is an extremely likable player because of his smarts in all areas of the game and the way he uses his airy skater and heady approach to navigate the ice. Some still wonder about how lean he is and whether he has the body to get to the inside and shoot the puck into the net himself enough, but he was excellent in the AHL last year, and the NHL is around the corner for him now. Actual draft pick: No. 55 (change: +31) to Winnipeg My final ranking: No. 39 (change: +15) Salomonsson, like Luneau, was viewed as a first-rounder at 16 and then became a second-rounder at 17 when his draft year had some ups and downs and didn't meet expectations. And like with Luneau, I was higher on the player through that than most. Now he's a big, strong, competitive, physical, highly mobile two-way D coming off an excellent AHL season on a bad AHL team who looks destined to become a good NHL D. Actual draft pick: No. 11 (change: -14) to Arizona My final ranking: No. 17 (change: -8) It was always easy to be drawn to Geekie. He was the Manitoba boy with the gregarious personality and a game that flashed real skill for a 6-foot-4 forward. He could play both center and the wing. He's going to have a really nice career in the NHL. The question was always more about pace and whether his skill would reveal itself as much at the NHL level or be a little more limited. Taking him at No. 11 was probably a little overzealous. Advertisement Actual draft pick: No. 19 (change: -7) to Minnesota My final ranking: No. 14 (change: -12) In a draft class where a lot of the forwards were polarizing in one way or another, Ohgren was a well-liked, well-rounded winger who was always going to have a successful pro career. He didn't have a defining or dynamic quality (though he did have a plus-grade shot), and he could just become a bottom-six secondary contributor, but that still probably makes him a late-first in a do-over. He had a really solid first season in the AHL last year as well. Actual draft pick: No. 54 (change: +27) to Boston My final ranking: No. 64 (change: +37) Poitras has always been a very smart player who has navigated the ice really intelligently and found ways to facilitate for his linemates and was decently competitive off-puck. The question at draft time was whether, as a 5-foot-11 center, he could score goals at the NHL level. That remains a bit of a question now, too. He was very good for Providence last year, playing to a point per game as one of the most productive players in his age cohort. But he also scored just one goal in 33 NHL games last season. He's a heady player. He's going to have to show he's more than just a guy at the NHL level and carve out a niche beyond the subtle passing feel/vision. I think he, Ohgren and Geekie are all in a similar boat in terms of what they have to prove. Actual draft pick: No. 46 (change: +18) to New Jersey My final ranking: No. 27 (change: -1) Casey, like Nemec, is caught up in a numbers game in New Jersey. That doesn't take away from what he has shown over the years, which is that he's one of the top offensive defensemen in his age group. He showed that internationally for Team USA. He showed it at Michigan, where he registered 45 points in 40 games as a sophomore. And he has now shown it in rookie tournaments and in the AHL. Though his results in the NHL were better than his underlyings, he was also immediately productive with the big club, registering eight points in 14 regular-season games, outscoring the opposition 8-4 in his minutes at five-on-five, and getting into a playoff game. He's a high-end skater and offensive thinker who I think defends better with his feet and stick than people realize. He may, like Korchinski, need to be moved to fully reach his potential, but I'd bet we see it at some point in his career. Actual draft pick: No. 29 (change: none) to Arizona My final ranking: No. 85 (change: +56) Advertisement The way Lamoureux thinks and processes the game has come a long way since the draft and has made all the difference for his obvious physical tools (the skating, the length, etc.). Guys don't always learn it, either. He's a very successful developmental story and would tell you the same. Full marks to him, his team and Arizona/Utah for the job they've done — and for the original swing and trust that he'd put it together. He still. has some work to do on a couple of things, but he's going to be a unique No. 4-5 NHL D. Actual draft pick: No. 80 (change: +50) My final ranking: Honorable mention Pettersson has always been a what-you-see-is-what-you-get player, and that player is now a solid third-pairing D, which in and of itself is good third-round value. I viewed him as more of a Round 4-5 guy at the time. Actual draft pick: No. 30 (change: -1) to Winnipeg My final ranking: No. 8 (change: -23) See this week's players I was wrong about column for more on my Lambert evaluation. Actual draft pick: No. 133 (change: +101) My final ranking: Honorable mention Those with a watchful eye will notice that Bump is the one order change from my drafted prospects ranking last week. I mentioned then that he was No. 101 (the final cut for it) and that there were a couple of players in the 90s that I thought about ranking him ahead of. The more I thought about it, the more I came back to it. So he leapfrogs a couple of guys, who slide into the honorable mentions here. Bump really worked on his game and impressed scouts and Broncos staff alike with the changes he made and the commitment he showed over his two seasons in college, and he's now knocking on the NHL door. The skill, shot and strength on the puck are there. The little things have come. He looks like a potential middle-six secondary scorer. Advertisement C Owen Beck Actual draft pick: No. 33 to Montreal My final ranking: No. 46 C Luca Del Bel Belluz Actual draft pick: No. 44 to Columbus My final ranking: No. 47 LW/RW Dmitri Buchelnikov Actual draft pick: No. 52 to Detroit My final ranking: Not ranked C Filip Bystedt Actual draft pick: No. 27 to San Jose My final ranking: No. 58 RHD Ryan Chesley Actual draft pick: No. 37 to Washington My final ranking: No. 31 LHD Artyom Duda Actual draft pick: No. 36 to Arizona My final ranking: No. 89 RW Jordan Dumais Actual draft pick: No. 96 to Columbus My final ranking: No. 34 RW Jagger Firkus Actual draft pick: No. 35 to Seattle My final ranking: No. 29 LHD Isaiah George Actual draft pick: No. 98 to the Islanders My final ranking: Honorable mention C Ryan Greene Actual draft pick: No. 57 to Chicago My final ranking: No. 71 C Stephen Halliday Actual draft pick: No. 104 to Ottawa My final ranking: Not ranked RW Joakim Kemell Actual draft pick: No. 17 to Nashville My final ranking: No. 7 C Cameron Lund Actual draft pick: No. 34 to San Jose My final ranking: No. 72 RHD Victor Mancini Actual draft pick: No. 159 to the Rangers My final ranking: Not ranked C Fraser Minten Actual draft pick: No. 38 to Toronto My final ranking: No. 79 LW/RW Ivan Miroshnichenko Actual draft pick: No. 20 to Washington My final ranking: No. 28 LW/RW Jani Nyman Actual draft pick: No. 49 to Seattle My final ranking: No. 45 LHD Owen Pickering Actual draft pick: No. 21 to Pittsburgh My final ranking: No. 53 LW Reid Schaefer Actual draft pick: No. 32 to Edmonton My final ranking: No. 83 Overall, I am happy with the results of my evaluations and/or projections on a good group of players. Hutson is obviously the big one, but my board did well and I'm proud of my evaluations and where I landed on Kulich, Nazar, Mateychuk, Salomonsson, Howard, Luneau, Casey, Korchinski, Yurov, Geekie and Ostlund, as well as some others in the honorable mentions (I was rightly lower on Schaefer, Pickering, Miroshnichenko and Beck, in my view, for example). Advertisement There's also obviously a big group that we were aligned on and went where I had them or in that range. But there were also some slottings that I appear to have misplaced (Savoie, Slafkovský, Kasper, Gauthier, Rinzel, Lambert, Bichsel, plus some of the honorable mentions such as Kemell and Buchelnikov) and a couple of them are big ones. The easy cop-out on those would be to point to lingering challenges of evaluating this age group coming out of the pandemic, or saying that I'm a different evaluator today than I was then. But overall, my 2022 list has performed worse than my others have so far. I want to be beating the field and 2022 is more of a mixed bag than I'd like, with some lessons to take away. Previous re-drafts and ranking reviews: (Photos of Logan Cooley and Lane Hutson: Bruce Bennett and Patrick Smith / Getty Images)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store