By Max Bultman, Corey Pronman and Scott Wheeler
The reaction to Corey Pronman’s latest ranking of the NHL’s under-23 players and prospects has been sharp — primarily as it pertains to his placement of Montreal Canadiens defenseman Lane Hutson at No. 39.
So on this week’s episode of The Athletic Hockey Show Prospect Series, we had Pronman debate his list with two more prospect analysts — The Athletic’s Scott Wheeler and Flo Hockey’s Chris Peters — as well as podcast co-host Max Bultman.
Below is an abridged transcript of some of those debates, surrounding Hutson and other notable prospects (such as Connor Bedard, Nate Danielson and Brock Faber), edited for clarity and length.
Bultman: We’re going to start on the topic that obviously has dominated the talk around the article when it came out. And that, of course, is Lane Hutson. And I wanted your first reaction, Scott, to where Corey had Lane on his list.
Wheeler: I mean, we’re talking about a kid who’s a front-runner to potentially win the Calder Trophy this year, who’s having a historic season production-wise in the NHL for his age, a better season than Moritz Seider and Drew Doughty and Aaron Ekblad and all of the top young defensemen that have come into the NHL, really in the post-lockout era. He’s got a chance to hit 55 or 60 points.
He’s been electric at times this year, especially since taking over on that first power play from Mike Matheson. I think he changed what that team looked like, especially after the swap with Matheson. They’ve been a better team ever since then. Their power play has been better ever since then. And I think he’s one of the biggest reasons that an NHL team (Montreal), in the here and now, is in the mix for a playoff spot, versus a lot of these other kids who just aren’t even close to making an impact at the NHL level.
There were some defensemen ranked higher than him here that I just don’t think will ever make the kind of impact at the NHL level that Lane is currently making, and is going to make in the future.
The big disagreement, I think, that Corey and I have always had is about the defense and whether the defense will ever get to the level that Corey thinks it needs to get to in order to play 25, 30 minutes without giving back too much. But I think based on what we’ve seen, he’s defended well, considering that team. That team defends poorly as a team. He’s been much better since Alexandre Carrier was brought into the mix.
I’m not worried about what he’s going to look like at 23, 24, 25 years old at this point, in terms of giving a ton back. Will he give a little bit back? Maybe. But the offense is going to tilt so much in his favor when he’s out there and he’s likely going to be so dynamic on the power play that I still think we’re talking about a premium, premium, premium offensive defenseman in the NHL and those guys are top-of-the-lineup players.
He’s likely going to get a fat contract someday. I think we’re talking about a future star in the NHL, if he’s not that already.
Pronman: I think you guys know where I stand. I think the offense is excellent. I think he’s a pretty good skater. I don’t think he’s a Quinn Hughes-level skater. I think the size concern is going to be an issue in terms of defending, especially defending in the playoffs. We can kind of go down that road: I was looking the other day — I think only two defensemen of that size have ever played in the Stanley Cup Final.
When I talked to teams about this when I was at the All-American showcase and the OHL Top Prospect Showcase this past week, that was always the comment that came up, people all think he’s a really good player, but don’t know if that player type, you can win with him. And I think that’s the debate, you know. It’s a debate not just with him. It’s a debate with Adam Fox. It’s a debate with Quinn Hughes even, to an extent, about how that player type holds up long-term in the playoffs. But he’s still a really good player.
Max, I have him back-to-back on the list with Simon Edvinsson. Edvinsson was picked sixth overall by Detroit a couple of years ago. If that was a one-for-one trade proposal, obviously two very different player types, but what do you think Detroit would do if that was on the table?
Bultman: I don’t think they would do it. And you’re right, they’re very different players. I think Lane Hutson’s going to outscore Simon Edvinsson every year of their NHL careers pretty much. But Edvinsson has a very different role. He is already a very good shutdown defender.
I think they are in the same tier. But I don’t think Detroit would make that trade.
Pronman: For all three of you, where would you put (Hutson)? I know you’re not going to agree with everybody on the list. We’re not going to audit every single player. But like general range, where does he belong?
Wheeler: I think I’d probably have him in the top 20.
Bultman: I think in the 30s somewhere. I mean, there are some guys on your list that had really good pedigree who I think I would be ready, at this point, to drop below him. Like I think at this point I’d probably take him over Shane Wright. I think it’s fair to put him above Zayne Parekh, who’s a similar profile guy, a little bit more size, but not as proven. But I think we’re still talking in the 30s there. For me, at least.
Peters: For me, he’s in the next tier up and he’d be at the top of the tier. So I’d say tier four, top-of-the-lineup player. The question isn’t, is he a top-of-the-lineup player on a Stanley Cup contender, (it’s) is he a top-of-the-lineup player in the NHL? And I think you can make that case that he is already, and will be going forward.
I would have him over (Anton) Silayev, I would have him over (Brandt) Clarke, I would have I’m over Parekh decisively. I’m not as big of a believer in those players. And I have been very high on Lane over the years.
So for me, he’s higher. But I can also understand the argument, and I think most NHL teams would argue similarly to Corey in where they have him.
Pronman: I polled a bunch of NHL people in the wake of this feedback and I asked them like, “Your player, I had him directly rated ahead of Lane. Would you do a swap?”
And a lot of the answers I got back were no. Which shouldn’t be surprising. He’s sandwiched in between a lot of recent top-six, top-eight picks. These are all players who their respective teams are super excited by, and had major passion in when they picked them. And a lot of them just said, we just don’t do small defensemen and it’s just a philosophical thing and it just wouldn’t be a conversation for us.
I think that’s the interesting debate,”‘can you win with this player?” I think you can. I think you can win with Lane Hutson. I think you can win with Adam Fox. I think you can win with Quinn Hughes. But I think it’s a really interesting conversation because I think the people in the league would argue that those players will get overpaid for what they actually bring to the table just because of their numbers.
Wheeler: In the same vein, similar to your Simon Edvinsson question: You’ve got Brandt Clarke five spots ahead. Put yourself in the Los Angeles Kings’ shoes. If you’re the Los Angeles Kings, are you swapping Brandt Clarke for Lane Hutson, one-for-one?
Because, I think that’s a pretty — even for most NHL clubs — I think that’s a pretty clean trade that they make, in favor of Lane Hutson and what he brings to the table right now.
Pronman: It would be a good discussion. A little different situation. I think the Kings are just a much better team this year. But I think (if) you look at Brandt’s underlying numbers, they’ve been excellent this year. Even if the points haven’t been at the same level. And I think you’re thinking that his player type will just hold up better in the playoffs, too. That’s the argument, I think, in favor of him.
I think Brandt’s looked really, really good this year. I don’t think his offense is quite the same level as Lane’s. But I think it’s really, really good. Defending is probably a similar question just because of his skating, but he’s bigger. I think there’s a little bit more pushback in his game in terms of the physicality, but I think that’s a really good question and I would be open to that argument. I don’t have them in different worlds. I have him a couple of spots ahead.
Bultman: I want to get your guys’ biggest gripes with Corey’s list (besides Hutson), or guys that you want to press him on a little bit, or you would have ranked differently.
Peters: It’s not necessarily a huge disagreement, but Connor Bedard was No. 3 on this list. And you think back to pre-draft hype … he’s behind Tim Stützle, he’s behind Macklin Celebrini. And I, quite frankly, don’t disagree with the No. 1 player on this list. I think that Celebrini is starting to prove that his all-around game is there.
I just think that I want a little more context in terms of how you ultimately came to that decision of Stützle over Bedard (at No. 2).
Pronman: I just think the traits that Stützle has, to me, are just so special. Top ten skating forward in the league for me, might even be higher than that. Top five, you could argue, in terms of just pure skating ability. He’s just shown so much offense since he’s come into the league.
I think just a really dynamic even-strength player, in terms of everything he can do with his skating and skill, playmaking ability, competitive centerman as well. To me, projecting him forward, this is a guy I think — you look at what wins in the NHL playoffs — this is a guy who I think could be a first-line center on a winning team. Like, he has the makeup of those kinds of players. You think of Cup champions and what first-line centers look like on those teams — to me, he looks a lot like those players tend to, in terms of what he can bring to the table.
He will lag behind Bedard in terms of skill and especially in terms of goal-scoring ability. I think his finish has always been a question, although Bedard’s goal scoring hasn’t been quite as prolific as we would have thought when he was in junior. But he’s a teenager, so I think that can change as he gets stronger and older.
But to me that would be the debate there, is I think Bedard — similar to a conversation we had in the first segment — I think Bedard is going to get more points than him throughout the course of his career, and their production is similar-ish as it stands right now — although with a significant age difference.
But I think Stützle’s offense is still pretty special. His puck play is pretty special. And that skating profile is just so unique that I think when the game gets really fast and competitive, I think that’s going to be a guy you’re going to play 28 minutes in those hard playoff games and he’s going to make a difference.
Wheeler: My big one, we’ve talked about it before, but it was Nate Danielson (at No. 36). When I was scrolling through the list, his name was the first one that sort of popped out at me and I sort of had a “Whoa” moment. Nate is one spot behind Will Smith and ahead of Parekh, Ryan Leonard and Lane Hutson, who we’ve already talked about ad nauseam.
I think that Leonard is a dominant force at every level he’s played at this point in his career. I think Parekh and Smith are two of the most purely skilled young players we have in this sport. And I just don’t see it with Nate.
I like that he’s a 6-foot-2 center who can skate and he’s competitive. He’s got four goals in the AHL this year. Good player. But if you’re talking about the impact and where they’re going to play in a lineup, I think that if Parekh, Leonard, Hutson, Smith — if those kinds of guys hit their ceiling, if those guys hit their mark, we’re talking about dynamic, dynamic players in the NHL. And I just do not think that Nate Danielson has that in him. I think even if Danielson hits his mark, he’s probably a 50-point center in the NHL. And I’m not even fully convinced that he’s going to get there in terms of the offensive piece of it.
I’ve never been able to really wrap my head around Nate. I think he’s going to be a good NHL player and have a long career, but I think there are players who are ranked in the same tier as him for this project who are just a clear, clear, clear cut above.
Pronman: The production hasn’t been amazing this year, but I would argue that he’s been (among) Grand Rapids’ 1-3 best players this season, as one of the youngest players in the American League. He’s playing every situation 19, 20 minutes a night for them. He stands out.
I think that’s always kind of been the issue with Danielson is aesthetically he looks like a top prospect with the size (and) skating. I think he has really good skill, (so) I would disagree with that assessment. I think his skill really pops. I think he competes hard. I just think he doesn’t score goals really. That’s always a concern. And just the point production maybe doesn’t reflect to me what I see when I watch the player.
Max, I know you just went to watch him. In terms of what you saw, you seem to think that’s basically what you saw, was a guy who looked like a top prospect, right?
Bultman: Yeah, I mean, in the game I was at, he hit a post, he had an assist, he had two more rushes that I thought looked like they might become a goal.
I left that (game) feeling like that should have been a multi-point game for Danielson based on how it looked, and yet, you’re right. That is a familiar story at this point. And there is a little bit of tension between the tools, which I think look clearly like a top-six center, and you just want to see the results and the production match that.
Peters: Danielson has always been one of the toughest ones for me to evaluate as well. And I think the other thing compounding his production this year is Grand Rapids is averaging under three goals per game. That’s not a very high-scoring team.
He’s had some eye-popping plays throughout the season. But again, I think it all comes back to repeatability. And that’s the thing that I’ve never, ever felt, in multiple viewings over multiple events and multiple levels, that I’ve ever seen him do it.
Now, with the time that he has in the AHL, I think that the way that Detroit has typically had their prospects spend that time there, I think there is time for him to get there. And I think that until he’s there, I don’t see him as a top-of-the-lineup guy. And that’s probably my gripe as well. But again, I think it comes back to: you see all the tools. You see aesthetically, like Corey said, there is so much to like. It’s just a matter of when the rubber hits the road here.
Wild defenseman Brock Faber has excelled since arriving in the NHL. (Michael Reaves / Getty Images)
Peters: This is one that Corey knows well because we’ve had this discussion multiple times, and again, we’re talking about a guy that’s still very high on the list and we’re splitting hairs. But he’s also a guy that is playing in the 4 Nations coming up here, and it’s Brock Faber, who comes in at number 23.
To me, I think that Owen Power and Sam Dickinson are among the more egregious players who are ahead of him, just because of the positional similarity. I don’t necessarily think that he’s in the wrong tier. I could maybe make the argument that he belongs in a similar tier to Jake Sanderson, but I don’t have that huge of a gripe.
I think that he is going to be a centerpiece of USA’s Olympic team. I think he’s going to play a ton of minutes in the 4 Nations as well. I think that he is one of those guys who isn’t necessarily as flashy, isn’t necessarily as productive. But boy, if that’s the kind of guy who I think you can win a lot of hockey games with, and I think that’s a big reason why I have a lot of belief in that U.S. team to compete with the depth of Canada, because they have players like Brock Faber now that they didn’t have before.
I think that we’re talking — maybe not production-wise as an NHL All-Star, but as, impact-wise, an NHL All-Star.
Pronman: Probably a lot of similarities to (Charlie) McAvoy in terms of the player style. I think with Faber — and again, have him, I’m basically saying a bubble All-Star. I think he’s a monster and he already got paid like a monster, he’s playing like a monster. It’s just a matter of leveling out where he belongs.
Despite his massive success in the NHL through his first year and a half in the league, I have never — maybe it’s a bias in my head I just can’t get out — I have never been able to connect the dots between the offense he’s provided and what I actually think the player is as a hockey player. In terms of I’ve never viewed him as like a playmaker or a first power-play guy.
And I can’t help but think when Zeev Buium gets to this team — and I think he’s going to get here in the spring, and going to be playing playoff games for the Wild potentially. I think at some point Faber is going to give the power play to Buium. And then I do wonder what’s Faber’s value to this team or to a team when he is not running the first power play and he’s just this really good skating, really competitive guy who’s probably not going to really be a major offensive guy at even strength.
I still think he’s a star, or a budding star, in that regard, but maybe just not in the way he’s been used over the last 18 months in Minnesota. That would be the tough part. But maybe I’m just an idiot and I just haven’t given him enough credit for how well he’s moved the puck so far.
Peters: Yeah, I just think he’s one of the smartest players in this age group.
What has happened over the course of his career, and the reason that I think he had such immediate success in the NHL, is that he always had that brain, but as he continued to get stronger physically — his skating has always been an asset to him — all of those different things, they’ve all combined at the right time for him to be an immediate impact player.
And I personally, like if he’s not No. 1 power play, I don’t give a s—, honestly. I mean, I think to me, he’s going to probably lead his team in even-strength ice time for the next 15 years. Which I place a high amount of value on.
(Photo of Lane Hutson and Connor Bedard: Minas Panagiotakis and Luke Hales / Getty Images)
