The Athletic Ranking the Top NHL Players and Prospects Under 23

[Phil]

Tier 1 — Bubble generational player and elite NHL player

No Rangers

 

Tier 2 —Elite NHL player

No Rangers

 

Tier 3 — Bubble elite NHL player and NHL All-Star

No Rangers

 

Tier 4 — NHL All-Star

No Rangers

 

Tier 5 — Bubble NHL All-Star and top of the lineup player

 

Quote

19 — Alexis Lafrenière

 

The start of Lafrenière's NHL career has been much debated. This season he's seemed to find more of a consistent groove with the Rangers. He has excellent hands, he thinks the game very well and he can make a lot of difficult plays with the puck. Inside the offensive zone he can stand out due to his various offensive talents, which is why he was a No. 1 pick. The biggest issue in the NHL for Lafrenière has been his footspeed. He doesn't have the quickness to get by most NHL defensemen. He's competing better this season, overcoming his skating issues to an extent and getting more offensive zone time on a top-two line. If you're expecting a star, I don't think Lafrenière is going to be that, but he could be a very good 30/30 type of wing for a while.

 

Tier 6 — Top of the lineup player

 

Quote

45 — Gabe Perreault

 

Perreault carried his strong draft season into his freshman campaign at Boston College, becoming one of the top scorers in the country. He is an extremely skilled and intelligent winger. He makes highly creative and unique dekes and passes with the puck at a high rate, both off the perimeter and in small areas. His puck game is clear NHL power-play quality, and he will score as a pro. The issues in Perreault’s game are his 5-foot-11 frame and lack of footspeed. He gets to the interior and shows strong second efforts to win pucks, but whether his game translates to the NHL will be a question until it does. I think he's so talented that he will be a major scorer in the NHL, but I understood why he slid to the 20s on draft day as well, as his player type succeeding is more the exception than the rule.

 

Tier 7 — Bubble top and middle of the lineup player

 

Quote

64 — Kaapo Kakko

 

Coming off his most productive NHL season, Kakko struggled mightily offensively in the first half of the season before getting hurt 20 games in. He's a very difficult player to get a read on for those reasons. When he's on, Kakko is a highly skilled big-body winger who can attack the interior parts of the offensive zone and provide a heavy game. However, his skating is just OK, he's not a super creative playmaker and the inconsistency with his scoring in the NHL raises questions about exactly how high the ceiling is for Kakko. He may just be a steady second-line wing when it's all said and done.

 

Tier 8 — Middle of the lineup player

 

Quote

85 — Braden Schneider

 

No profile

 

Quote

94 — Brennan Othmann

 

No profile

 

Quote

118 — Will Cuylle

 

No profile

 

https://theathletic.com/5197201/2024/01/16/nhl-players-prospects-ranking-under-23/

 

--

 

Rebuild: Crushed It™

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

Tier 1 — Bubble generational player and elite NHL player

No Rangers

 

Tier 2 —Elite NHL player

No Rangers

 

Tier 3 — Bubble elite NHL player and NHL All-Star

No Rangers

 

Tier 4 — NHL All-Star

No Rangers

 

Tier 5 — Bubble NHL All-Star and top of the lineup player

 

 

Tier 6 — Top of the lineup player

 

 

Tier 7 — Bubble top and middle of the lineup player

 

 

Tier 8 — Middle of the lineup player

 

 

 

 

https://theathletic.com/5197201/2024/01/16/nhl-players-prospects-ranking-under-23/

 

--

 

Rebuild: Crushed It™

I don't think you have a real clear perspective on what a rebuild is.

 

Maybe name some teams who have done it better?

 

Of course you realize Laf and Kakko would have been taken by any team in those positions.

 

I'm having trouble understanding what you're complaining about? The organization? The players stinking?

 

I mean Edmonton was bad for a while and what do they have to show for it? Toronto was bad for a while and what do they have to show for it? Arizona... Yea... So tell me who's done a better job of rebuilding? Tampa... Sure if they rebuilt around LTIR.

 

I just really don't understand the whining. Could things have been better? Sure. Things could also be be much much worse. 

[Long live the King]

The only real mistake was Andersson over Necas, Suzuki, and Thomas.  Laf and Kakko were must picks.  Nothing really worth crying over after Krav as far as forwards.

 

Add that to the fact they are 5th in the league in wins over the last 3 years.  That's preferable to me rather than drafting in the top 5 for a decade until a true generational player comes along.

[MuddyInTheMiddle]

Firstly, Tiers 1-4 are largely redundant, and should probably be only 2 Tiers(Generational and Elite or All Star). It's also a little early to be calling someone in their draft year "generational"; who knows if Bedard is going to be a generational talent in the Crosby/McDavid mold or simply just a year in-year out All Star like Jack Hughes projects to be? 

 

I also get that this is an Under 23 list so there has to be a level of speculation here, but until Michkov & Will Smith play a game in the NHL, they should not even be on the list. Putting Carlson, Fantilli, and L. Hughes on as Elite/All Stars with a couple of dozen games under their belt is a stretch too.

 

Absolutely hate when I agree with Pete, but I think that he is 100% spot on. The two drafts that the Rangers whiffed on during the rebuild were the Andersson(2017) and Kravtsov(2018) drafts, and in the case of the latter while Bouchard, Dobson, Wahlstrom, or Farabee would all have been very serviceable parts, none are true difference makers in those early draft spots. That has been covered to death here, so no real new insights there.

 

Finally something that I also noticed while typing, is that nobody from either of those drafts(2017 or 2018) that they selected, would have been eligible for this list as they are over 23years old. 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I don't think you have a real clear perspective on what a rebuild is.

 

Maybe name some teams who have done it better?

 

Sure do — bottom out and/or sell valuable longer-term assets to reposition and restock your cupboards to better compete in usually 3–5 years.

 

Quote

Of course you realize Laf and Kakko would have been taken by any team in those positions.

 

I'm having trouble understanding what you're complaining about? The organization? The players stinking?

 

 

Quote

I mean Edmonton was bad for a while and what do they have to show for it? Toronto was bad for a while and what do they have to show for it? Arizona... Yea... So tell me who's done a better job of rebuilding? Tampa... Sure if they rebuilt around LTIR.

 

I just really don't understand the whining. Could things have been better? Sure. Things could also be be much much worse. 

 

No one does it perfectly, but most other clubs who've gone through similar organizational rebuilds have more to show from it. Using your examples, Edmonton have two generational centers and a #1 PP defenseman. Toronto have the (pending) greatest American goal-scorer of all-time, William Nylander, and Mitch Marner. Arizona never actually rebuilt — they're just a giant money laundering operation with no long-term future in Arizona. Once that's settled (or the team moves), we can start the clock (again).

 

But yes, I'm just complaining because the Rangers' luck was shit and without Panarin, they'd be so much worse. It would feel more like Hall-era Oilers, but even less productive.

[LindG1000]

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Sure do — bottom out and/or sell valuable longer-term assets to reposition and restock your cupboards to better compete in usually 3–5 years.

 

 

 

 

No one does it perfectly, but most other clubs who've gone through similar organizational rebuilds have more to show from it. Using your examples, Edmonton have two generational centers and a #1 PP defenseman. Toronto have the (pending) greatest American goal-scorer of all-time, William Nylander, and Mitch Marner. Arizona never actually rebuilt — they're just a giant money laundering operation with no long-term future in Arizona. Once that's settled (or the team moves), we can start the clock (again).

 

But yes, I'm just complaining because the Rangers' luck was shit and without Panarin, they'd be so much worse. It would feel more like Hall-era Oilers, but even less productive.

 

I mean...do you want to be Edmonton with their one conference finals appearance since they began rebuilding in 2010 and staring down the specter of losing those two centers in reasonably short order?

 

Do you want to be Toronto, with their big three and one playoff series win since 2003? Do you want to be Arizona, or Columbus, or Detroit, or Buffalo? 

 

We've got playoff wins post-rebuild. We drafted and added pieces that should be top half of the lineup mainstays for the next 10 years. We're five years into the "rebuild" and that's included a conference finals appearance and two seasons running now where we're in the conversation as a legit cup contender, a Vezina, a Norris, and a Hart nomination (with another one deserved, and possibly coming).

 

Yeah, we did it a little unconventionally. But we did it, which is a hell of a lot more than some of these teams that "do it right" can say.

 

 

[Pete]

47 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Sure do — bottom out and/or sell valuable longer-term assets to reposition and restock your cupboards to better compete in usually 3–5 years.

 

 

 

 

No one does it perfectly, but most other clubs who've gone through similar organizational rebuilds have more to show from it. Using your examples, Edmonton have two generational centers and a #1 PP defenseman. Toronto have the (pending) greatest American goal-scorer of all-time, William Nylander, and Mitch Marner. Arizona never actually rebuilt — they're just a giant money laundering operation with no long-term future in Arizona. Once that's settled (or the team moves), we can start the clock (again).

 

But yes, I'm just complaining because the Rangers' luck was shit and without Panarin, they'd be so much worse. It would feel more like Hall-era Oilers, but even less productive.

Well Toronto and Edmonton still stink in the playoffs and the Rangers have had more postseason appearances and success.

 

They got unlucky by winning the lottery twice and drafting who they did. I don't know how you can say they did it wrong, when they did it the same way 31 other teams would have done it.

 

Only point of contention could be AHL time for Laf and Kakko. 

Edited January 17 by Pete

[Long live the King]

21 minutes ago, Phil said:

No one does it perfectly, but most other clubs who've gone through similar organizational rebuilds have more to show from it. Using your examples, Edmonton have two generational centers and a #1 PP defenseman. Toronto have the (pending) greatest American goal-scorer of all-time, William Nylander, and Mitch Marner. Arizona never actually rebuilt — they're just a giant money laundering operation with no long-term future in Arizona. Once that's settled (or the team moves), we can start the clock (again).

 

But yes, I'm just complaining because the Rangers' luck was shit and without Panarin, they'd be so much worse. It would feel more like Hall-era Oilers, but even less productive.

 

To my point:

 

2007: Gange #6

2009: Paajarvi #10

2010: Hall #1

2011: RNH #1

2012: Yakupov #1

2013: Nurse #7

2014: Draisaitl #3

2015: McDavid #1

2016: Puljujarvi #4

2018: Bouchard #10

2019: Broberg #8

 

They just happen to suck long enough until they sucked in the "right" years.  Even with their generational centers they missed the playoffs 3 times, lost in the Covid qualifying round, lost in the first round, lost in the second round twice, and made one conference final.  

 

The Rangers had 4 down years and were back in the conference finals.  Does Edmonton have more to show for it?

 

Toronto missed the playoffs 10 out of 11 years.  All they have to show for their draft picks is 1 playoff series win.  

 

Just because they have flashy names doesn't mean they were any more successful at rebuilding than the Rangers.

[Phil]

35 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

I mean...do you want to be Edmonton with their one conference finals appearance since they began rebuilding in 2010 and staring down the specter of losing those two centers in reasonably short order?

 

Do you want to be Toronto, with their big three and one playoff series win since 2003? Do you want to be Arizona, or Columbus, or Detroit, or Buffalo? 

 

We've got playoff wins post-rebuild. We drafted and added pieces that should be top half of the lineup mainstays for the next 10 years. We're five years into the "rebuild" and that's included a conference finals appearance and two seasons running now where we're in the conversation as a legit cup contender, a Vezina, a Norris, and a Hart nomination (with another one deserved, and possibly coming).

 

Yeah, we did it a little unconventionally. But we did it, which is a hell of a lot more than some of these teams that "do it right" can say.

 

Unconventional is one to categorize it. "Kinda poorly" is how I would. I'm not even sure they "rebuilt" as much as they "retooled" because they never truly bottomed out the way we think of most teams doing to build up the draft collateral they need to truly reset their franchises. Edmonton has (to middling results). Pittsburgh did (to tremendous results).

 

I mean, if Panarin chooses the Islanders or Avalanche instead of the Rangers, they're probably in a world of hurt.

 

The kind way for me to categorize their rebuild would be "lucky." As in lucky the moves they made in free agency and trades panned out as well as they have. If they head to rely on their drafting alone, this team looks more like Hall-era Oilers, and probably performs about as well, too.

[LindG1000]

Just now, Phil said:

 

Unconventional is one to categorize it. "Kinda poorly" is how I would. I'm not even sure they "rebuilt" as much as they "retooled" because they never truly bottomed out the way we think of most teams doing to build up the draft collateral they need to truly reset their franchises. Edmonton has (to middling results). Pittsburgh did (to tremendous results).

 

I mean, if Panarin chooses the Islanders or Avalanche instead of the Rangers, they're probably in a world of hurt.

 

The kind way for me to categorize their rebuild would be "lucky." As in lucky the moves they made in free agency and trades panned out as well as they have. If they head to rely on their drafting alone, this team looks more like Hall-era Oilers, and probably performs about as well, too.

 

I think you're looking at this wrong. That's not the way to rebuild, and you need look no further than Buffalo, Arizona, Edmonton, Detroit, Columbus, or Ottawa. Relying on the draft alone is the fatal flaw that has kept those teams down for almost a decade now.

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Unconventional is one to categorize it. "Kinda poorly" is how I would. I'm not even sure they "rebuilt" as much as they "retooled" because they never truly bottomed out the way we think of most teams doing to build up the draft collateral they need to truly reset their franchises. Edmonton has (to middling results). Pittsburgh did (to tremendous results).

 

I mean, if Panarin chooses the Islanders or Avalanche instead of the Rangers, they're probably in a world of hurt.

 

The kind way for me to categorize their rebuild would be "lucky." As in lucky the moves they made in free agency and trades panned out as well as they have. If they head to rely on their drafting alone, this team looks more like Hall-era Oilers, and probably performs about as well, too.

If they swing and miss on Bread is a whole other conversation that's not worth having because they would still be pretty bad and it would trigger a series of events like moving Kreider and maybe even some others. Who knows if they win the lottery twice, and if that causes them to put one of their top draft picks in the AHL.

 

It was a half rebuild half retool on the fly and all things considered it's gone pretty well as far as things that were under their control. They can't control two draft picks that got a lot of hype they can't live up to. And they are really the only ones who are going to keep fans from saying the rebuild was a success. 

[Phil]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

If they swing and miss on Bread is a whole other conversation that's not worth having because they would still be pretty bad and it would trigger a series of events like moving Kreider and maybe even some others. Who knows if they win the lottery twice, and if that causes them to put one of their top draft picks in the AHL.

 

It was a half rebuild half retool on the fly and all things considered it's gone pretty well as far as things that were under their control. They can't control two draft picks that got a lot of hype they can't live up to. And they are really the only ones who are going to keep fans from saying the rebuild was a success. 

 

Agree with all of this. I'm breathing-a-sigh-of-relief-happy, but I just can't help but feel uncomfortable with just how poorly those drafts went.

[siddious]

26 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Agree with all of this. I'm breathing-a-sigh-of-relief-happy, but I just can't help but feel uncomfortable with just how poorly those drafts went.

You should be quite comfortable actually, this team has almost never drafted well. A few gems in late rounds really kept this team afloat for a while (Hank Callahan Dubinsky) but do we need to re-hash all the terrible picks over the years?

 

I was happy to see drury basically clear house this past off season because it was clearly an area that neeeded some new brains. 

I think better drafting could have been done for sure. Particularly in late rounds where it seems that those picks (round 3 and on) never amount to much of anything. I’m not even talking about a Hank like pick but depth which this team doesn’t have. But generally to give them shit for the rebuild is a bit weird.
 

Kakko and laf, if you have issues with them, are not suspects of bad drafting but rather of awful development. 
 

miller chytil and Schneider were good picks.

 

Cuylle and Othman were good picks even though jury is still out on Othman (I think this list is a bit harsh on him but tile will tell).

 

Perrault remains to be seen but there’s a hell of a lot to love there. 
 

Lias and krapsoft were bad picks. Lias in general because of where they took him. Krsvtsov had some things going for him but yea bad pick.

 

jury is still out on some others too.. let’s not forget all the deadline deals where they sold picks.  Other than kakko and laf there also hasn’t been TOO many opportunities to draft in prime positions either (again lias might fit that mold). Most picks have been mid to late first rounders.

[Phil]

14 minutes ago, siddious said:

You should be quite comfortable actually, this team has almost never drafted well. A few gems in late rounds really kept this team afloat for a while (Hank Callahan Dubinsky) but do we need to re-hash all the terrible picks over the years?

 

I was happy to see drury basically clear house this past off season because it was clearly an area that neeeded some new brains. 

I think better drafting could have been done for sure. Particularly in late rounds where it seems that those picks (round 3 and on) never amount to much of anything. I’m not even talking about a Hank like pick but depth which this team doesn’t have. But generally to give them shit for the rebuild is a bit weird.
 

Kakko and laf, if you have issues with them, are not suspects of bad drafting but rather of awful development. 
 

miller chytil and Schneider were good picks.

 

Cuylle and Othman were good picks even though jury is still out on Othman (I think this list is a bit harsh on him but tile will tell).

 

Perrault remains to be seen but there’s a hell of a lot to love there. 
 

Lias and krapsoft were bad picks. Lias in general because of where they took him. Krsvtsov had some things going for him but yea bad pick.

 

jury is still out on some others too.. let’s not forget all the deadline deals where they sold picks.  Other than kakko and laf there also hasn’t been TOO many opportunities to draft in prime positions either (again lias might fit that mold). Most picks have been mid to late first rounders.

 

Yeah, I detailed some of it recently. They've added exactly one non-first round draft pick (Cuylle) to their full-time roster in nine drafts. Technically two if you count Zac Jones, who barely qualifies (considering he never plays), or three if you count Morgan Barron, who they traded.

 

I also don't think Kakko and Laf are victims of bad development. They are who they are. They woudl have benefitted from AHL time, probably, maybe, but a year in the A isn't pushing their ceilings any. They'd likely have developed as the players they are today, just a little sooner or smoother.

 

This is largely why I draw a hard line in the sand on drafting at the Othmann draft. It was the first full draft with Drury running show. He hasn't had any late-draft luck yet either, but these players feel more hopeful. Specifically guys like Othamann, Sykora, BMB, Perreault, and Fortescue. It was before the cutoff, but I'm not writing off Brett Berard, either, though I freely admit that's for selfish reasons.

[Long live the King]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

Yeah, I detailed some of it recently. They've added exactly one non-first round draft pick (Cuylle) to their full-time roster in nine drafts. Technically two if you count Zac Jones, who barely qualifies (considering he never plays), or three if you count Morgan Barron, who they traded.

 

I also don't think Kakko and Laf are victims of bad development. They are who they are. They woudl have benefitted from AHL time, probably, maybe, but a year in the A isn't pushing their ceilings any. They'd likely have developed as the players they are today, just a little sooner or smoother.

 

This is largely why I draw a hard line in the sand on drafting at the Othmann draft. It was the first full draft with Drury running show. He hasn't had any late-draft luck yet either, but these players feel more hopeful. Specifically guys like Othamann, Sykora, BMB, Perreault, and Fortescue. It was before the cutoff, but I'm not writing off Brett Berard, either, though I freely admit that's for selfish reasons.

 

Hard to say 9 drafts.  Looking at 2020, there are only 2 non first rounders that have played more than 80 games and one was the 3rd pick in round 2.  If you're looking for good late round picks gotta give them 4-5 years to develop.  There a good number of kids with a shot in that group.

[Phil]

2 hours ago, Long live the King said:

 

Hard to say 9 drafts.  Looking at 2020, there are only 2 non first rounders that have played more than 80 games and one was the 3rd pick in round 2.  If you're looking for good late round picks gotta give them 4-5 years to develop.  There a good number of kids with a shot in that group.

 

I am. Starting with the Othmann draft. Organizational reset (for me).