2026 NHL Draft

[Picker of Cherries]

Don’t know why you bring up Stenberg? He’ll be a top two pick.
The Canucks will be picking third, guaranteed!
That’s why we’re debating Verhoeff, Reid, Carels, and Malhotra.

[Nuckertuzzi]

Kinda said that already earlier...

Good chance all moot anyway when we get 3rd.

It's all about shits and giggles until it's official.

[Lancer]

Talking about toughness in the playoffs in the Random Hockey Shit thread, it occurred to me as something I would hope the team looks at moving forward: looking for size and physicality in the mid rounds over high-ceiling/low-floor skill bets. Unless the scouts know something about a small, skilled high-risk player in their pick range that convinces them they have a diamond in the rough, I would like them to look for a bigger kid with projectable skating fundamentals and some snarl with whom they can work on his hands. Allriksson could fit if he could skate but he's never had the smoothest stride.

[Meds]

Good take Lancer.

More and more we are seeing small, skilled, players relegated into obscurity in the post season as the whistles get pocketed. There are exceptions, but those exceptions are found in guys who are opportunists that often finish plays where others have done a lot of the leg work.

I would prefer it if they called the trip/hook/clutch-grab/interference more but let the rough stuff go. Let skill thrive but only if it’s tough enough.

[2Fingers]

What is considered small?

Is it height and weight?

Is McKenna too small?

[UWSaint]

Good take Lancer.

More and more we are seeing small, skilled, players relegated into obscurity in the post season as the whistles get pocketed. There are exceptions, but those exceptions are found in guys who are opportunists that often finish plays where others have done a lot of the leg work.

I would prefer it if they called the trip/hook/clutch-grab/interference more but let the rough stuff go. Let skill thrive but only if it’s tough enough.

Yeah, Jake Guentzel’s been atrocious. And how about those sub 6 footers on Montreal (Suzuki, Caufield, Hutson). Point a game sucks.

All other things equal, I agree. Take size. All other things being equal, I agree, take the physical player. Small guy who fights through check vs. big guy who’s a softie or can’t make plays under pressure? Small guy please.

Thing is, 6’1 and plus strong guys are the most athletic. And they comprise most of the league. Almost all teams are built with a fair amount of attention to physicality and athletic-ness. When one of them wins, we think: , that’s the model! But most of the teams in the playoffs bend towards that model. And don’t win. And tons of individual players play that style, and are often ineffective in the playoffs.

I am not dismissing the benefits — there’s a reason most teams want to get bigger and stronger. What I am saying is that you have to have a certain degree of skill, and you have to have difference makers. Ideally they are packaged like Drysydle or Hedman. But if you have a chance to pick a Quinn Hughes or Cole Caufield when he’s dropped just because he’s short, you do it. Fill the complements with size and snarl, but don’t forget to get special players.

[Topper]

If 1st overall.

Trade down a couple of picks, attach Scooter to the 1st, draft the unicorn in top of the class, build from the backend out.

[Meds]

If 1st overall.

Trade down a couple of picks, attach Scooter to the 1st, draft the unicorn in top of the class, build from the backend out.

That’s not at all a bad plan.

See if you can squeeze an extra out as well. If not, take the win that comes with $11.6M in free space.

[Meds]

Good take Lancer.

More and more we are seeing small, skilled, players relegated into obscurity in the post season as the whistles get pocketed. There are exceptions, but those exceptions are found in guys who are opportunists that often finish plays where others have done a lot of the leg work.

I would prefer it if they called the trip/hook/clutch-grab/interference more but let the rough stuff go. Let skill thrive but only if it’s tough enough.

Yeah, Jake Guentzel’s been atrocious. And how about those sub 6 footers on Montreal (Suzuki, Caufield, Hutson). Point a game sucks.

I posted another reply to this in the OOTS thread because I had started to depart towards the MTL/TB series rather than picks and players.

I will say that Caufield is a player I thought of specifically as a guy who might have more points had a few of these interference-type infractions been called. But overall these type of calls/non-calls have are not a factor in this series…..so while the examples here are not to be overlooked, I think they are not as substantial to the overall conversation regarding this subject as it pertains to playoff officiating.

Also, Suzuki isn’t really a small player. He’s 2” shorter than the 6’1” you reference, but he’s 207lbs. So there.

[Lancer]

Good take Lancer.

More and more we are seeing small, skilled, players relegated into obscurity in the post season as the whistles get pocketed. There are exceptions, but those exceptions are found in guys who are opportunists that often finish plays where others have done a lot of the leg work.

I would prefer it if they called the trip/hook/clutch-grab/interference more but let the rough stuff go. Let skill thrive but only if it’s tough enough.

Yeah, Jake Guentzel’s been atrocious. And how about those sub 6 footers on Montreal (Suzuki, Caufield, Hutson). Point a game sucks.

All other things equal, I agree. Take size. All other things being equal, I agree, take the physical player. Small guy who fights through check vs. big guy who’s a softie or can’t make plays under pressure? Small guy please.

Thing is, 6’1 and plus strong guys are the most athletic. And they comprise most of the league. Almost all teams are built with a fair amount of attention to physicality and athletic-ness. When one of them wins, we think: , that’s the model! But most of the teams in the playoffs bend towards that model. And don’t win. And tons of individual players play that style, and are often ineffective in the playoffs.

I am not dismissing the benefits — there’s a reason most teams want to get bigger and stronger. What I am saying is that you have to have a certain degree of skill, and you have to have difference makers. Ideally they are packaged like Drysydle or Hedman. But if you have a chance to pick a Quinn Hughes or Cole Caufield when he’s dropped just because he’s short, you do it. Fill the complements with size and snarl, but don’t forget to get special players.

By the time you hit the mid-rounds, it's a crap-shoot anyway no matter what size they are. I guess it comes down to what projectable trait(s) they're looking for in their pick ranges, though I hope they would prioritize drive, coachability and character over higher-ceiling projectability; IMO it's the biggest determinant in whether they hit their ceiling or not at that point in the draft.

It's just been a while since this club grew and graduated its own sandpaper and snarl. They tend to import their toughness down the lineup.

[Aaronp18]

So my updated game plan should we have a capable GM at some point before the draft.

Win the lotto, take McKenna.

Second or third pick we trade down for a couple other first round picks (a few teams have a couple 1st this year - NYR, SJ, WAS, STL) see who wants to target someone specifically at 2/3. Take the now 3 first rounders and move up to get 2 in the top 10 and draft 2 of Verhoeff, Reid, Smits, Carels, Malhotra, Lawrence or Rudolph.

McKenna doesn't make us immediately better and likely makes the team.

The 2 of the other guys we get likely go back to College/CHL hockey for a year.

Tankinen helps us shoot for DuPont who is likely the next difference maker out of the draft, silver medal is one of the next 3 tops centres available in the 2027 draft (right now I like the Western kid Jacobsen).

In 2 drafts we are well on our way to a solid rebuild.