**Bultman:** OK gentlemen, last time we convened we had you zero in on just one decision, the Blackhawks at No. 2. Today I want to cover a few more players you differ on in your lists. I think the most interesting name that fits that theme high in the draft is Calgary (WHL) RHD Carter Yakemchuk. Scott has him at 13, but Corey, you have him all the way up at No. 3. So we’ll start with Corey: What makes you so excited about this player?
**Pronman:** I think there’s a ton to be excited about in Yakemchuk’s game. He’s a 6-3 defenseman who is among the most purely skilled players in the draft. He was a constant highlight-reel machine in the WHL. You add one of the best shots in the draft and a player who has some physicality and it’s an exciting package. People will pick apart his skating. It’s not the prettiest stride but he blows by people regularly and I think it’s more a strength thing than a deep issue. He is better offensively than in his own end but I think with all the tools: his length, feet and compete you can mold that player into a two-way force. He projects as a No. 1 defenseman in the NHL for me.
**Bultman:** Scott, what are your concerns on Yakemchuk, obviously with the caveat you still have him pretty high on your list?
**Wheeler:** I think his feet and mobility are a minor concern in terms of his projection defensively. He doesn’t move particularly naturally, and can look clumsy or sluggish at times. His pivots and recoveries can be sloppy. He’ll get caught flat-footed. He finished 33rd of 35 skaters in overall on-ice testing results at the CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game. I know he’s not a natural athlete in the gym. He’s got some work to do on that front if he’s going to improve his defense (and it was part of the reason he took so many minor penalties this year).
He also just doesn’t read it/make the best decisions defensively, so there’s some growth that needs to happen there as well. His below-average feet/smarts were enough for me to rank him after the other top D in the class despite his obvious talent, physicality, size, etc. If he can improve in those areas, though, he’s got the skill to be a high-end NHL D. I expect they’ll keep him from being a No. 1 though.
**Bultman:** Corey, you already addressed the skating portion, but I wanted to see what you thought about the defending in particular. Even if it’s not the reason a team is drafting him, what gives you faith he can round out that part of his game?
**Pronman:** I don’t have a big issue with his defending. It’s certainly not a selling point, and he will have to work on his gaps. I think it’s mostly nitpicking though. I see a defenseman with length, good mobility for his size, good hockey sense, and strong compete. I think you can mold that player into a good defender as a pro. I saw the same critiques of Yakemchuk in Luke Hughes and Pavel Mintyukov. They’re not the same players, but they were very toolsy defensemen who constantly were in attack mode and got criticized because they weren’t responsible defensively enough. I think that when Yakemchuk has the puck on his stick all the time when he’s on the ice helps his team keep pucks out of the net.
**Bultman:** OK, let’s go to Scott now on a player he’s higher on than Corey is. Zayne Parekh is one of the premier puck-movers in this class, and Scott has him ranked fifth, right after Zeev Buium. Corey has him at No. 9, with a whole tier gap behind Buium. Scott, what’s the case for Parekh in the top 5?
**Wheeler:** Parekh’s skill level and offensive sense/intuition are among the highest I’ve seen in a draft-eligible D. He’s a magnetic offensive talent with a remarkable feel for the game with the puck. He’s just got a rare ability to turn puck touches into moments of brilliance. And it doesn’t just come from his individual skill, or his shot. It’s also the way he sees it and the cleverness of his game in both quick little plays he identifies ahead of opposing players and also the long ones he’s able to manufacture.
Increasingly, he has also learned to use that sixth sense he has to anticipate defensively at a high level, breaking up a ton of plays with his stick. Once I saw him defend at a high level, excel on the penalty kill, and really begin to take over and steer games, rather than just the offense, I was sold on his star power. I won’t be surprised if Parekh becomes the top D of the bunch. I know there are some scouts who have him as their top-ranked D and I wasn’t far off from that, honestly.
**Bultman:** Corey, what creates the tier of separation between Buium and Parekh for you?
**Pronman:** I think Buium has just as much offense as Parekh but the defense is better. I grade his skating higher and thought he was a solid college defender as opposed to Parekh being an average junior defender. I don’t think Parekh’s defense is an issue but it’s not a strength. Parekh has elite hockey sense but so does Buium. Parekh dominated junior but Buium was more impressive for me given the level of play he faced. I think Buium is simply dynamic and has the potential to be a star who can play all situations.
I think Parekh can be like Evan Bouchard. He’ll get you numbers and be awesome on a power play but you’ll be nervous defensively.
**Bultman:** Scott, what would you say to that? Do you have any hesitance there with Parekh’s defense?
**Wheeler:** Evan Bouchard has played 25 minutes a night to the best goal-differential results on the Stanley Cup finalists, so I think he has answered questions about his defense pretty emphatically in the last few months. I believe Parekh, with the way he thinks and sees the game, will also figure out how he needs to defend in the NHL in order to get out there for big minutes so that he can put up big numbers as well.
I’m in line with Corey on the rest of his side-by-side comps there, and also have Buium ahead of Parekh on my list, but don’t see a clear tier division between the two.
**Bultman:** OK, onto one more really interesting name here. Stian Solberg had a big performance at the men’s World Championship for an 18-year-old defenseman, and you both now have a first-round ranking on him. Scott has him at No. 21, and Corey all the way up at No. 12. Corey, we’ll start with you. What made you feel comfortable putting Solberg in the top half of the first round?
**Pronman:** I don’t know if comfortable is the right way to describe a player who played all year in Norway. I would certainly like more data on him. But he certainly elevated a lot for me about his fantastic world championships where he was a top player for a Norway team that held their own. You don’t want to overrate two weeks but it made me go back into his other international events over the years and I saw a lot of the same. He’s a super physical 6-2 defender who can skate. The puck play rightfully got picked apart due to his mediocre world juniors but he’s shown much better in that regard elsewhere, especially at the worlds where he led the first PP unit for Norway and showed solid skill and instincts. His offense won’t be his calling card, but decent offense hyper-physical defensemen who are athletic go in the top 20 all day.
**Bultman:** Scott, last word to you. What’s your read on Solberg and where he fits in this class?
**Wheeler:** Solberg has emerged as the No. 7 D in the class for most folks (myself included) because of the pro look (the strength, physicality, and athleticism) of his game. He’s a safe bet to be a top-six NHL D and has good odds of becoming a top-four one. I do think he showed more offense in his game as the year progressed, even if his play with the puck comes with some mistakes at times. I don’t think he thinks the game necessarily all that well, but his tools allow him to play on instinct and have a real impact on shifts/games. When I look at the draft order, though, No. 14 to San Jose is the upper limit on where I’d consider taking him though. In front of that, I just think the available forwards have more upside.
Philip Broberg (No. 8), Kaiden Guhle (No. 16), Corson Ceulemans (No. 25), Nolan Allan (No. 32), Braden Schneider (No. 19) and Lassi Thomson (No. 19) are all recent first-round picks with some similarities in tools/style. I think he’s in the tier of Guhle/Schneider more than a Thomson/Ceulemans/Allan but I also think you’re better off taking him in a Guhle/Schneider range than closer to Broberg’s.
1 Comment
**Bultman:** OK gentlemen, last time we convened we had you zero in on just one decision, the Blackhawks at No. 2. Today I want to cover a few more players you differ on in your lists. I think the most interesting name that fits that theme high in the draft is Calgary (WHL) RHD Carter Yakemchuk. Scott has him at 13, but Corey, you have him all the way up at No. 3. So we’ll start with Corey: What makes you so excited about this player?
**Pronman:** I think there’s a ton to be excited about in Yakemchuk’s game. He’s a 6-3 defenseman who is among the most purely skilled players in the draft. He was a constant highlight-reel machine in the WHL. You add one of the best shots in the draft and a player who has some physicality and it’s an exciting package. People will pick apart his skating. It’s not the prettiest stride but he blows by people regularly and I think it’s more a strength thing than a deep issue. He is better offensively than in his own end but I think with all the tools: his length, feet and compete you can mold that player into a two-way force. He projects as a No. 1 defenseman in the NHL for me.
**Bultman:** Scott, what are your concerns on Yakemchuk, obviously with the caveat you still have him pretty high on your list?
**Wheeler:** I think his feet and mobility are a minor concern in terms of his projection defensively. He doesn’t move particularly naturally, and can look clumsy or sluggish at times. His pivots and recoveries can be sloppy. He’ll get caught flat-footed. He finished 33rd of 35 skaters in overall on-ice testing results at the CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game. I know he’s not a natural athlete in the gym. He’s got some work to do on that front if he’s going to improve his defense (and it was part of the reason he took so many minor penalties this year).
He also just doesn’t read it/make the best decisions defensively, so there’s some growth that needs to happen there as well. His below-average feet/smarts were enough for me to rank him after the other top D in the class despite his obvious talent, physicality, size, etc. If he can improve in those areas, though, he’s got the skill to be a high-end NHL D. I expect they’ll keep him from being a No. 1 though.
**Bultman:** Corey, you already addressed the skating portion, but I wanted to see what you thought about the defending in particular. Even if it’s not the reason a team is drafting him, what gives you faith he can round out that part of his game?
**Pronman:** I don’t have a big issue with his defending. It’s certainly not a selling point, and he will have to work on his gaps. I think it’s mostly nitpicking though. I see a defenseman with length, good mobility for his size, good hockey sense, and strong compete. I think you can mold that player into a good defender as a pro. I saw the same critiques of Yakemchuk in Luke Hughes and Pavel Mintyukov. They’re not the same players, but they were very toolsy defensemen who constantly were in attack mode and got criticized because they weren’t responsible defensively enough. I think that when Yakemchuk has the puck on his stick all the time when he’s on the ice helps his team keep pucks out of the net.
**Bultman:** OK, let’s go to Scott now on a player he’s higher on than Corey is. Zayne Parekh is one of the premier puck-movers in this class, and Scott has him ranked fifth, right after Zeev Buium. Corey has him at No. 9, with a whole tier gap behind Buium. Scott, what’s the case for Parekh in the top 5?
**Wheeler:** Parekh’s skill level and offensive sense/intuition are among the highest I’ve seen in a draft-eligible D. He’s a magnetic offensive talent with a remarkable feel for the game with the puck. He’s just got a rare ability to turn puck touches into moments of brilliance. And it doesn’t just come from his individual skill, or his shot. It’s also the way he sees it and the cleverness of his game in both quick little plays he identifies ahead of opposing players and also the long ones he’s able to manufacture.
Increasingly, he has also learned to use that sixth sense he has to anticipate defensively at a high level, breaking up a ton of plays with his stick. Once I saw him defend at a high level, excel on the penalty kill, and really begin to take over and steer games, rather than just the offense, I was sold on his star power. I won’t be surprised if Parekh becomes the top D of the bunch. I know there are some scouts who have him as their top-ranked D and I wasn’t far off from that, honestly.
**Bultman:** Corey, what creates the tier of separation between Buium and Parekh for you?
**Pronman:** I think Buium has just as much offense as Parekh but the defense is better. I grade his skating higher and thought he was a solid college defender as opposed to Parekh being an average junior defender. I don’t think Parekh’s defense is an issue but it’s not a strength. Parekh has elite hockey sense but so does Buium. Parekh dominated junior but Buium was more impressive for me given the level of play he faced. I think Buium is simply dynamic and has the potential to be a star who can play all situations.
I think Parekh can be like Evan Bouchard. He’ll get you numbers and be awesome on a power play but you’ll be nervous defensively.
**Bultman:** Scott, what would you say to that? Do you have any hesitance there with Parekh’s defense?
**Wheeler:** Evan Bouchard has played 25 minutes a night to the best goal-differential results on the Stanley Cup finalists, so I think he has answered questions about his defense pretty emphatically in the last few months. I believe Parekh, with the way he thinks and sees the game, will also figure out how he needs to defend in the NHL in order to get out there for big minutes so that he can put up big numbers as well.
I’m in line with Corey on the rest of his side-by-side comps there, and also have Buium ahead of Parekh on my list, but don’t see a clear tier division between the two.
**Bultman:** OK, onto one more really interesting name here. Stian Solberg had a big performance at the men’s World Championship for an 18-year-old defenseman, and you both now have a first-round ranking on him. Scott has him at No. 21, and Corey all the way up at No. 12. Corey, we’ll start with you. What made you feel comfortable putting Solberg in the top half of the first round?
**Pronman:** I don’t know if comfortable is the right way to describe a player who played all year in Norway. I would certainly like more data on him. But he certainly elevated a lot for me about his fantastic world championships where he was a top player for a Norway team that held their own. You don’t want to overrate two weeks but it made me go back into his other international events over the years and I saw a lot of the same. He’s a super physical 6-2 defender who can skate. The puck play rightfully got picked apart due to his mediocre world juniors but he’s shown much better in that regard elsewhere, especially at the worlds where he led the first PP unit for Norway and showed solid skill and instincts. His offense won’t be his calling card, but decent offense hyper-physical defensemen who are athletic go in the top 20 all day.
**Bultman:** Scott, last word to you. What’s your read on Solberg and where he fits in this class?
**Wheeler:** Solberg has emerged as the No. 7 D in the class for most folks (myself included) because of the pro look (the strength, physicality, and athleticism) of his game. He’s a safe bet to be a top-six NHL D and has good odds of becoming a top-four one. I do think he showed more offense in his game as the year progressed, even if his play with the puck comes with some mistakes at times. I don’t think he thinks the game necessarily all that well, but his tools allow him to play on instinct and have a real impact on shifts/games. When I look at the draft order, though, No. 14 to San Jose is the upper limit on where I’d consider taking him though. In front of that, I just think the available forwards have more upside.
Philip Broberg (No. 8), Kaiden Guhle (No. 16), Corson Ceulemans (No. 25), Nolan Allan (No. 32), Braden Schneider (No. 19) and Lassi Thomson (No. 19) are all recent first-round picks with some similarities in tools/style. I think he’s in the tier of Guhle/Schneider more than a Thomson/Ceulemans/Allan but I also think you’re better off taking him in a Guhle/Schneider range than closer to Broberg’s.