Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

Oct 26, 2023, 12:30 PM ET

Michigan has become the biggest story in college football — not for the dominance it has displayed this season with arguably coach Jim Harbaugh’s best team, but possibly how it got there. Since news broke a week ago that the NCAA is investigating Michigan for off-campus signal stealing, information has been flowing fast and furiously.

As ESPN first reported, low-level staff member Connor Stalions is at the center of the NCAA probe. He purchased tickets to games involving other Big Ten teams and Michigan’s potential College Football Playoff opponents, and sources say he led an “elaborate” system of scouting and sign stealing.

Michigan on Friday suspended Stalions with pay, pending the outcome of the NCAA investigation. Harbaugh, already under NCAA investigation for recruiting violations during the COVID-19 dead period, has denied directing any staff member to conduct off-campus scouting and denied having any knowledge of illegal signal stealing within the program.

On Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that an external investigative firm tipped off the NCAA with evidence of signal stealing it had obtained from computer drives accessed by Michigan coaches, setting off a new set of questions.

How elaborate was the scouting system? What will the NCAA and Big Ten ultimately do, and when? As the NCAA investigation continues and the Big Ten looks on, having the authority to act, Heather Dinich, Adam Rittenberg and Mark Schlabach look at what we know so far.

What details have emerged about how the alleged scheme worked?

ESPN reported Tuesday that Stalions purchased tickets to games at 12 of the other 13 Big Ten schools; the one that didn’t find his name in its records doesn’t have access to StubHub and other secondary markets. ESPN also found that Stalions purchased tickets for games at four schools outside of the Big Ten that were either in College Football Playoff contention or playing contenders.

There also are records of Stalions buying tickets to the 2021 and 2022 SEC title games, sources told ESPN. The tickets to the SEC title games were purchased on the secondary market. In total, ESPN found that Stalions purchased tickets to more than 35 games at 17 stadiums around the country. He has used a network of at least three people who lived in various parts of the country who were forwarded tickets to attend games.

The Washington Post reported that the investigative firm that discovered the scheme found records that indicated Michigan planned to send scouts to more than 40 games featuring 10 opponents this season at a cost of more than $15,000. The schedule included as many as eight games involving rival Ohio State and four or five in which two-time defending national champion Georgia was playing.

The firm didn’t present any evidence to the NCAA that showed Harbaugh was directly involved in the sign-stealing scheme, the Post reported, citing two people familiar with the investigation.

According to the Post, the firm provided NCAA officials with photographs of people it believed were scouts working for Michigan, including current students who were working as interns inside the football program. Videos the scouts purportedly took while attending games were then uploaded to a computer drive “maintained and accessed by Stalions as well as several other Michigan assistants and coaches,” according to the Post.

How the firm obtained access to computers being used by Michigan’s coaches — and who might have hired it to conduct the investigation — are among the most important unanswered questions.

“All I know is that no reputable private investigation firm is going to sit down with the NCAA and show them information without being able to explain how they acquired it,” a person familiar with the Michigan case told ESPN. — Mark Schlabach

What have we learned about Connor Stalions?

Stalions, a 28-year-old graduate of the Naval Academy and a die-hard Michigan fan, had been around the Wolverines program for years and officially joined the staff more than a year ago.

Stalions was hired as an off-field analyst at Michigan in May 2022, according to a bio on his LinkedIn account, which has since been deactivated. In the bio, Stalions wrote that he attempts to “employ Marine Corps philosophies and tactics into the sport of football regarding strategies in staffing, recruiting, scouting, intelligence, planning and more.”

Among the skills Stalions boasted about on LinkedIn were “identifying the opponent’s most likely course of action and most dangerous course of action” and “identifying and exploiting critical vulnerabilities and centers of gravity in the opponent scouting process.”

The son of two Michigan grads, Stalions enrolled at the Naval Academy and was a student assistant for the Midshipmen from 2013 to 2016. After being commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps in 2017, Stalions worked as a graduate assistant at Navy before beginning his military training, according to his LinkedIn account.

While he was stationed at Camp Pendleton in California, Stalions wrote, he served as a volunteer assistant coach at Michigan from May 2015 to May 2022.

On Wednesday, Sports Illustrated published text messages that it said Stalions exchanged with a student attending a Power 5 school who wanted to get into coaching. The text messages were reportedly sent between January 2021 and February 2021.

SI reported Stalions claimed to have a Google document of between 550 and 600 pages that was his blueprint for the future of the Michigan program. According to the report, he referred to the document as a “movement more than a plan” and called it the “Michigan Manifesto.” Stalions claimed to be working with other low-level staffers at Power 5 schools to come up with a long-term plan for Michigan’s future. — Schlabach

Where do things stand with the NCAA’s investigation? What is a realistic timeline in a case like this?

After receiving the information from the investigative firm, the NCAA enforcement staff notified Michigan officials and the Big Ten about the allegations Oct. 18. ESPN reported last week that the NCAA sought access to Stalions’ computer.

If further investigation is needed, the NCAA would issue a notice of inquiry to Michigan. According to the NCAA website, there are four potential resolution methods:

  • A negotiated resolution, in which enforcement staff and the school agree on the facts of the case, the level and classification of the violations, and appropriate penalties. According to the NCAA, this is the fastest track, yet it still took an average of 368 days to complete, according to the NCAA’s 2021-22 annual report on infractions.

  • A summary disposition, in which the NCAA and school agree on the facts but not on the level of violations and the punishment. The parties would submit a report to the committee on infractions (COI), which would reach a decision and decide punishment. The parties can request an expedited hearing, and the school can appeal the COI’s decision.

  • A written record hearing, which occurs when the parties have limited disputes about the facts or level of violations. A written report is submitted to a COI panel. The COI would focus on the disputed parts of the case and issue a ruling and penalties.

  • A full hearing would occur in major cases, and the parties would provide the allegations and written responses to the COI. Michigan would receive a notice of allegations and have 90 days to respond. The parties would argue their sides during a full hearing with the COI, which would issue a ruling and penalties.

The NCAA enforcement process has been notoriously slow despite the governing body’s efforts to speed up the process. For instance, Michigan received a notice of allegations involving recruiting violations allegedly committed during a COVID-19 dead period on Jan. 5 and still doesn’t have a resolution.

According to the NCAA’s most recent annual infractions report (2021-22), the enforcement staff spends an average of 10-12 months on a case, and the committee on infractions then spends an average of seven days to four months on it. A contested hearing track — the longest process — took an average of 921 days.

More than likely, the new case wouldn’t be fully adjudicated until sometime in the summer of 2024, if not later. — Schlabach

Could the Big Ten step in before an NCAA ruling?

Yes. The Big Ten can impose discipline before the NCAA investigation concludes, as long as the league determines there is enough concrete information to act. The league also could initiate its own investigation into potential violations of its sportsmanship policy, which states that “actions that are offensive to the integrity of the competition … are punishable.” Commissioner Tony Petitti has the exclusive authority to determine whether a sportsmanship violation has occurred and to impose discipline.

If discipline rises beyond the standard level, Petitti can propose more serious penalties to an executive committee filled with representatives from Big Ten schools. The committee must approve the discipline for it to be imposed; it can also deny or lessen it but cannot increase proposed penalties for a school or individuals.

Although the NCAA is the lead investigating body, the Big Ten has so much direct involvement because its members are impacted. Upon learning of the NCAA investigation, the league notified its members that are scheduled to face Michigan. There also has been no shortage of additional information coming out, through media reports or other channels, for the Big Ten to access and, possibly soon, act on.

“We obviously have an interest in this situation,” a Big Ten source told ESPN. “Included within that is getting as full a picture of the facts as we can. That’s where we’ll be interested in the outcome of the NCAA’s investigation. But we would not be required to wait until that process came to its conclusion if we deemed it appropriate for us to take action before that happened.”

If Petitti elects to initiate an investigation, Michigan would have the opportunity to present its position on the alleged infractions. But disciplinary decisions cannot be appealed. — Adam Rittenberg

What kind of violations and punishment could Michigan be looking at?

It’s difficult to say what potential penalties the Wolverines or Harbaugh could face, if any, because there’s never been a sign-stealing case of this magnitude brought before the enforcement staff.

Harbaugh already faces NCAA charges of failure to cooperate and head coach responsibility related to the COVID-19 recruiting violations case. The COI rejected a four-game negotiated suspension for Harbaugh in that case, and Michigan self-imposed a three-game suspension. A violation by a member of his coaching staff in the new case could trigger another charge of head coach responsibility, which could be a Level I violation.

The Big Ten has two tiers of discipline under its sportsmanship policy. Standard actions can rise up to a $10,000 fine and a two-game suspension, but any action against Michigan likely would fall under “major disciplinary action,” which requires approval from an executive committee made up of representatives from around the league. — Schlabach

Could this affect Michigan’s CFP ranking?

Not yet, if the selection committee members follow the written protocol the committee chair reminds them of at the start of each meeting. CFP executive director Bill Hancock has told ESPN that as long as a team is eligible to participate in the postseason, it is eligible to be ranked by the committee. If the NCAA or the Big Ten levies a postseason ban, the Wolverines are out.

ESPN reached out to past committee members to understand how the topic will be handled in the room.

“Because these things take so long, I think the committee tries to do things based on their criteria, based on the letter of the law, and I really don’t believe this would come into discussions during our meetings,” one former committee member said, “and if it did, it would be shut down really quickly because it doesn’t go with our standards. If for some reason it was fast-tracked, and they vacated wins during the season, obviously that’s a different story.”

That doesn’t mean, though, that committee members won’t be talking about the allegations against Michigan outside the room.

There will likely be some “private disgust and conversations away from the table about how this is a kick in the gut to sportsmanship and, especially among coaches, kind of sacrilegious,” the same former committee member said.

There are several former coaches and players on the committee who might feel more strongly about it than the sitting athletic directors. Former Nevada coach Chris Ault is on the committee, along with former Wake Forest coach Jim Grobe, Hall of Fame coach Joe Taylor, Hall of Famer Will Shields and former Notre Dame linebacker Rod West.

“I think this is totally against everything that is fair and ethical about college football,” another former committee member said.

Another former member said “it’s almost worse” if a committee member penalizes Michigan because he or she thinks the school might have done something.

“That’s not a metric, right?” the person said. “That could end up really adversely affecting the other rankings, and that’s not right, either.

“I would say at this stage the committee should rank them as they deem appropriate,” the same committee member said. “Keep an eye on their eligibility. But I think they’d have to rank the team based on what they see. There’s plenty to question outside of the alleged cheating. They’re doing everything they’re supposed to against the schedule they’re playing, but there’s not a lot of meat on the bone as far as their opponents yet. So that may be more of a discussion point.”

Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel is on the committee and must recuse himself during any discussions about where his team is in the ranking.

“He’ll lean on the fact the NCAA says you’re not supposed to discuss it,” another former committee member said. “It’ll be awkward and uncomfortable.” — Heather Dinich

What are coaches at other schools saying?

Coaches in the Big Ten have long suspected Michigan is stealing signals; even acknowledging that the Wolverines are hardly the only team doing so, their proficiency stands out. Stalions also is a known figure around the league, often positioned right next to defensive coordinator Jesse Minter or other Michigan assistants during games.

“What people are [speculating] about is [Stalions] has got a whole group of people that they sent to games to get all the signals,” a Big Ten coach said. “That’s why, the last two years, they’ve been all over it. Some people try to steal signs in-game or take it off the TV copy, but to send people to games to get video, that’s pretty bad.”

A Big Ten coach who suspected Michigan of off-campus signal scouting raised a question echoed by others: “Did they need to?” While coaches acknowledge the advantage of knowing an opponent’s signals before games, their opinions vary on how much the intel helps. A Big Ten coach said Michigan has the best team he has seen and predicted Michigan would have 20 players selected in the NFL draft off of its current roster.

Coaches note how reliant some coaches and teams have become on knowing the opponent’s signals. A Big Ten coach noted that it appeared Michigan didn’t have TCU’s signals before facing the Horned Frogs in the CFP semifinals last year and that it became “desperate” during a 51-45 loss that didn’t resemble any other Wolverines game that season.

“There are a good number of staffs out there, offense and defense, that can’t call a game without knowing what the other team’s doing, a good percent,” an ACC coordinator said. “I am fired up that everybody’s going to have to coach football the same, hopefully, moving forward.” — Rittenberg

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Sports

Ranking the top 64 NHL draft prospects, including projected ceilings and floors

Published

16 hours ago

on

June 11, 2025

By

Ranking the top 64 NHL draft prospects, including projected ceilings and floors

  • Rachel DoerrieJun 5, 2025, 07:30 AM ET

    Close

      Rachel Doerrie is a professional data consultant specializing in data communication and modelling. She’s worked in the NHL and consulted for professional teams across North American and Europe. She hosts the Staff & Graph Podcast and discusses sports from a data-driven perspective.

The games are done for the top draft prospects; there is no hockey left to be played. A few players in the top 10 played until the last possible moment, making a lasting impression on scouts and executives at the Memorial Cup. With the combine taking place this week in Buffalo, New York, players will undergo physical testing and a rigorous interview process with interested teams. The combine allows teams to ask out-of-the-box questions, get a feel for the personalities of the players and, in some cases, understand the significance of injuries.

There is room for movement on the draft board because combine testing does impact model outputs. Furthermore, this list weighs scouting as 40% of the evaluation. The final ranking, which will be published June 23, will weigh scouting, projection, off-ice assessments and industry intel to varying degrees, which may see some players move up or down.

There are five parts of this set of rankings:

  • The rank, which accounts for attributed value based on projection, the confidence of the projection and scouting.

  • The NHL projection weighs the projection formula at 70% and scouting at 30%, and represents the most likely outcome for that player. The final edition of the rankings will include the player’s NHL ceiling.

  • The NHL floor uses the same formula and represents the worst outcome, above 10% probability of occurring. If a player has a 4% chance of never playing NHL games and an 11% chance of becoming a fourth-line winger or No. 7 defenseman, then those projections will be used for NHL floor. For some players in the draft, the floor is outside of the NHL, perhaps the AHL or KHL.

  • Projection confidence is based solely on the projection formula and forms two parts: confidence and volatility. The confidence has four tiers: High, fair, medium and low. This represents that confidence the model has that the player will reach the NHL projection for 200 or more NHL games. The level of confidence impacts the value of the player and, therefore, their rank. High confidence is above 80%, fair is 60% to 79%, medium is 35% to 59% and low is below 35%. The volatility has four categories: Low, slight, medium and high. Volatility relates to the range of outcomes a player has in their career. A player with a low volatility means there is a smaller range of outcomes for the NHL career, whether that is a No. 1 defenseman to top-pair defenseman, or third-line center to bottom-six forward. A player with high volatility has a wide range of outcomes, with relatively even distributions over the NHL projection. It could be related to a number of factors: the league they play in, their scoring if they changed leagues, injuries or a significant uptick/downturn in play. Many of these players are considered “raw” in their development curve.

  • Strengths are each player’s standout abilities.

“Boom or bust” is an all-encompassing phrase with confidence and volatility. It means the player either hits their NHL projection or is unlikely to play 200 NHL games. The difference between a low-confidence/high-volatility projection and a boom-or-bust projection is simple: It means injuries played a role in the projection, and the sample size makes it difficult to confidently project the player’s most likely outcome; or that the league in which the player plays does not have a successful history of producing NHL players.

One other consideration is the “Russian factor,” where skilled Russians are more likely to return to Russia if they fail to hit their NHL projection.

Here is how the top 64 prospects line up according to my model:

1. Matthew Schaefer, D, Erie (OHL)

NHL projection: No. 1 defenseman
NHL floor: Top-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: High confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Mobility, puck moving, creativity, rush activation

2. Michael Misa, F, Saginaw (OHL)

NHL projection: Elite No. 1 center
NHL floor: Second-line winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Offensive instincts, explosiveness, transition offense, two-way play

3. James Hagens, F, Boston College (NCAA)

NHL projection: First-line center
NHL floor: Second-line center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Transition play, speed, hockey sense, puck handling

4. Porter Martone, F, Brampton (OHL)

NHL projection: Second-line power forward
NHL floor: Middle-six winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, scoring, hockey sense, size

5. Caleb Desnoyers, F, Moncton (QMJHL)

NHL projection: Top-six, two-way center
NHL floor: Third-line checking center
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, quick hands, playmaking, efficient puck play

6. Anton Frondell, F, Djurgardens (Allsvenskan)

NHL projection: Second-line center
NHL floor: Third-line scoring winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Versatility, two-way play, elite release, forechecking

7. Roger McQueen, F, Brandon (WHL)

NHL projection: First-line scoring center
NHL floor: Injury-shortened career
Projection confidence: Low confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, quick release, size

8. Viktor Eklund, F, Djurgardens (Allsvenskan)

NHL projection: Top-six scoring forward
NHL floor: Middle-six scoring forward
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Motor, transition offense, two-way play, off-puck play, hard skill

9. Jake O’Brien, F, Brantford (OHL)

NHL projection: Top-six playmaking center
NHL floor: Middle-six scoring winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, creativity, hockey sense

10. Jackson Smith, D, Tri-City (WHL)

NHL projection: Top-four defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Physicality, transition defense, mobility, puck moving

11. Brady Martin, F, Sault Ste. Marie (OHL)

NHL projection: Second-line scoring forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six power forward
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Motor, wall play, physicality, hard skill, competitiveness

12. Radim Mrtka, D, Seattle (WHL)

NHL projection: Top-four shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair transition defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Size, stick positioning and use, hockey sense

13. Carter Bear, F, Everett (WHL)

NHL projection: Second-line versatile forward
NHL floor: Third-line checker
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, versatility, two-way play, motor

14. Justin Carbonneau, F, Blainville-Boisbriand (QMJHL)

NHL projection: Second-line scoring forward
NHL floor: Middle-six forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Powerful stride, playmaking, puck handling

15. Logan Hensler, D, Wisconsin (NCAA)

NHL projection: Second-pair transition defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Gap control, mobility, transition play

16. Lynden Lakovic, F, Moose Jaw (WHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six scoring winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, finishing ability, hands, size

17. Kashawn Aitcheson, D, Barrie (OHL)

NHL projection: Second-pair defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair physical defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Physicality, competitiveness, aggression, strength

18. Braeden Cootes, F, Seattle (WHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six two-way center
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, speed, anticipation, forechecking

19. Cameron Schmidt, F, Vancouver (WHL)

NHL projection: Second-line scoring winger
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, offensive instincts, finishing ability

20. Cole Reschny, F, Victoria (WHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six two-way center
NHL floor: Bottom-six forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, anticipation, quick hands, competitiveness

21. Cameron Reid, D, Kitchener (OHL)

NHL projection: Top-four transition defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defensive defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Skating, transition play, hockey sense

22. Cullen Potter, F, Arizona State (NCAA)

NHL projection: Top-six forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, agility, offensive play driving, elite release

23. Benjamin Kindel, F, Calgary (WHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six two-way winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Hockey sense, transition, two-way play

24. Malcolm Spence, F, Erie (OHL)

NHL projection: Third-line two-way winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: High-end motor, two-way play, tenacity

25. Joshua Ravensbergen, G, Prince George (WHL)

NHL projection: No. 1 starting goaltender
NHL floor: 1B tandem goaltender
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Anticipation, crisp movements, competitiveness, lateral agility

26. Blake Fiddler, D, Edmonton (WHL)

NHL projection: Second-pair defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair physical defenseman
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Transition defense, in-zone defensive play, size, mobility

27. Sascha Boumedienne, D, Boston University (NCAA)

NHL projection: Second-pair two-way defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair offensive specialist
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Skating, stick play, transition play, slap shot

28. Jack Murtagh, F, USNTDP (USHL)

NHL projection: Third-line power forward
NHL floor: Fourth-line forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Motor, shooting, hard skill, straight-line speed

29. Jack Nesbitt, F, Windsor (OHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line defensive center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Strength, size, competitiveness, two-way play

30. Bill Zonnon, F, Rouyn-Noranda (QMJHL)

NHL projection: Third-line two-way forward
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: High-end motor, raw playmaking, competitiveness, puck battles

31. William Moore, F, USNTDP (USHL)

NHL projection: Third-line forward
NHL floor: NHL depth player
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Puck protection, skating, offensive instincts, puck skill

32. Ryker Lee, F, Madison (USHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six playmaker
NHL floor: Bottom-six scoring depth
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Hockey sense, creativity, puck handling, one-timer

33. Nathan Behm, F, Kamploops (WHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six scoring forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six scoring depth
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, shooting, creativity

34. Milton Gastrin, F, Modo (J20 Nationell)

NHL projection: Third-line two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, two-way instincts, motor

35. Shane Vansaghi, F, Michigan State (NCAA)

NHL projection: Third-line power forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking forward
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Physicality, strength, competitiveness, puck skill

36. Jakob Ihs-Wozniak, F, Lulea (J20 Nationell)

NHL projection: Middle-six scoring forward
NHL floor: Third-line scoring depth
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, finishing ability, offensive instincts

37. Jack Ivankovic, G, Brampton (OHL)

NHL projection: Platoon starting goaltender
NHL floor: High-end NHL backup
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Positioning, controlled movements, patience in save selection

38. Henry Brzustewicz, D, London (OHL)

NHL projection: No. 4/5 transition defender
NHL floor: AHL scoring defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Puck moving, gap control, creativity

39. Cole McKinney, F, USNTDP (USHL)

NHL projection: Third-line, two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line defensive center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, penalty killing, competitiveness, finishing ability

40. Eric Nilson, F, Orebro (J20 Nationell)

NHL projection: Bottom-six checking center
NHL floor: AHL top-six center
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, forechecking, competitiveness, defensive instincts

41. Vaclav Nestrasil, F, Muskegon (USHL)

NHL projection: Top-six power forward
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical winger
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Size, motor, two-way play, puck skill

42. Benjamin Kevan, F, Des Moines (USHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six two-way winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six speedster
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, transition offense

43. Ivan Ryabkin, F, Muskegon (USHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six power forward
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Quick release, creativity, physicality

44. Daniil Prokhorov, F, St. Petersburg (MHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six power forward
NHL floor: KHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Size, strength, physicality, heavy shot

45. Carter Amico, D, USNTDP (USHL)

NHL projection: No. 4/5 transition defenseman
NHL floor: No. 7 defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Mobility, transition defense, physicality, size

46. Max Psenicka, D, Portland (WHL)

NHL projection: No. 4/5 two-way defenseman
NHL floor: No. 7 defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Instincts, mobility, gap control, puck moving

47. Luca Romano, F, Kitchener (OHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six, two-way center
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking speedster
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Speed, transition play, motor

48. Alexander Zharovsky, F, Ufa (MHL)

NHL projection: Middle-six scoring winger
NHL floor: KHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Puck handling, instincts, creativity

49. Kurban Limatov, D, Moscow (MHL)

NHL projection: Second-pair, two-way defenseman
NHL floor: KHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Skating, mobility, aggressiveness, physicality

50. Mason West, F, Edina (USHS)

NHL projection: Middle-six physical forward
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical forward
Projection confidence: Low confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Strength, physicality, size, mobility

51. Kristian Epperson, F, Saginaw (OHL)

NHL projection: Third-line scoring winger
NHL floor: AHL top-six forward
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, playmaking, hockey sense

52. Matthew Gard, F, Red Deer (WHL)

NHL projection: Bottom-six checking center
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Strength, size, defensive play, motor

53. William Horcoff, F, Michigan (NCAA)

NHL projection: Third-line two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical presence
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, strength, size, wall play

54. Jacob Rombach, D, Lincoln (USHL)

NHL projection: Second-pair shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair physical defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, puck retrievals, motor

55. Peyton Kettles, D, Swift Current (WHL)

NHL projection: No. 4/5 shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, size, physicality

56. Hayden Paupanekis, F, Kelowna (WHL)

NHL projection: Bottom-six defensive center
NHL floor: Fourth-line center
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Competitiveness, size, defensive play

57. David Bedkowski, D, Owen Sound (OHL)

NHL projection: Bottom-pair shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: No. 7 physical defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Physicality, size, strong stick, penalty killing

58. Ethan Czata, F, Niagara (OHL)

NHL projection: Bottom-six checking center
NHL floor: AHL depth
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Penalty killing, physicality, hard skill

59. Haoxi “Simon” Wang, D, Oshawa (OHL)

NHL projection: Second-pair two-way defenseman
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Low confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Skating, mobility, size, transition defense

60. Theo Stockselius, F, Djurgardens (J20 Nationell)

NHL projection: Third-line two-way forward
NHL floor: AHL depth
Projection confidence: Low confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Hockey sense, hard skill, playmaking

61. Eddie Genborg, F, Linkoping (SHL)

NHL projection: Bottom-six checking winger
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical winger
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Physicality, two-way play, motor

62. Charlie Trethewey, D, USNTDP (USHL)

NHL projection: No. 4/5 two-way defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, physicality, heavy shot, skating

63. Alexei Medvedev, G, London (OHL)

NHL projection: 1B NHL goaltender
NHL floor: Reliable NHL backup
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Positioning, competitiveness, anticipation, athleticism

64. L.J. Mooney, F, USNTDP (USA)

NHL projection: Middle-six two-way scoring depth
NHL floor: AHL top-six scoring forward
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, motor

Continue Reading

Sports

Canadiens’ Hutson claims Calder as top rookie

Published

16 hours ago

on

June 11, 2025

By

Canadiens' Hutson claims Calder as top rookie

  • Field Level Media

Jun 10, 2025, 12:26 PM ET

Montreal Canadiens defenseman Lane Hutson was named the winner of the Calder Memorial Trophy on Tuesday.

The trophy is awarded annually “to the player selected as the most proficient in his first year of competition in the National Hockey League.” The award is voted on by the Professional Hockey Writers Association.

Hutson earned 165 of a possible 191 first-place votes and totaled 1,832 points, finishing well ahead of Calgary Flames goaltender Dustin Wolf (15, 1,169) and San Jose Sharks center Macklin Celebrini (11, 1,104).

The 21-year-old Hutson received the trophy at a surprise party his family had organized to celebrate his selection as a finalist.

Hutson led all rookies with 66 points, and his 60 assists tied the single-season NHL record for most by a rookie defenseman alongside Larry Murphy.

Celebrini, 18, played 70 games and scored 25 goals — second among rookies behind the Philadelphia Flyers‘ Matvei Michkov — and his 63 points tied with Michkov for second.

Wolf, 24, was 29-16-8 with a 2.64 goals-against average, .910 save percentage and three shutouts for the Flames, who selected him in the seventh round of the 2019 draft.

Continue Reading

Sports

Coach Sturm: Bruins fans’ passion ‘pushes you’

Published

16 hours ago

on

June 11, 2025

By

Coach Sturm: Bruins fans' passion 'pushes you'

  • Associated Press

Jun 10, 2025, 03:51 PM ET

BOSTON — Marco Sturm got his first taste of the passionate Bruins fans when he was traded to Boston for No. 1 draft pick — and soon-to-be NHL MVP — Joe Thornton.

“I mean, it wasn’t my fault, right?” the former Bruins forward told chuckling reporters Tuesday at a news conference to introduce him as the team’s coach. “I got here, and it was difficult. I’m not going to lie. You read the paper or social media or even you go on the street, people will let you know, right?

“But also it pushes you. And I saw it in the positive way,” Sturm said. “I’ve got such good memories here. And I know the fans, as soon as they feel that there’s something good happening here, they will support you. I know that. It kind of goes the other way, too. But I don’t want to talk about that. I want to look forward.”

A three-time Olympian and first-round draft pick who played five of his 14 NHL seasons for the Bruins, Sturm led Germany to a silver medal at the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics and spent the next six years in the Los Angeles Kings organization, the last three as head coach of its AHL affiliate.

The 46-year-old former left wing replaces Joe Sacco, who finished the season as the interim coach after Jim Montgomery was fired in November. Bruins general manager Don Sweeney said that as the team tries to rebuild after missing the playoffs for the first time since 2016 it was important to have a coach “who understands our fan base and values the same things — of being incredibly hard out each and every night.”

The Bruins marked the occasion with a news conference in their offices overlooking Causeway Street and the TD Garden. Former captain Patrice Bergeron, who assisted on Sturm’s overtime game winner in the 2010 Winter Classic at Fenway Park, was in the front row as a show of support. German chocolate cupcakes — a nod to the new coach’s heritage — were served.

Sturm said he never considered coaching while he played, but he started working with his own kids before getting the job as head coach and general manager of the German national team in 2015.

“And that’s where I really realized, ‘This is actually me,'” he said. “And that’s where I have passion. That’s where I’m good at. And then to go after that.”

He put his plans for family time on hold and spent six years living in Los Angeles, away from his wife and children.

“I was chasing my dream,” Sturm said, adding that the children, who are now 19 and 21, missed Boston since moving away. “My kids grew up there. They always wanted to come back. And here I am. Now they get their wish.”

Sturm said he wouldn’t have taken just any opening, but the Bruins presented a team that has strong goaltending in Jeremy Swayman and a solid core led by defenseman Charlie McAvoy and forward David Pastrnak that could push for the playoffs if it stays healthy. Boston also stockpiled draft picks and young talent from the midseason trade deadline purge that dealt several veterans — including Brad Marchand, the only remaining member of the Bruins’ 2011 Stanley Cup championship roster.

After posting 100-plus points in six straight non-pandemic-shortened seasons — including a Presidents’ Trophy in 2023, when they set NHL records of 65 wins and 135 points — the Bruins finished with 76 points this season; only three teams were worse.

“Every job — it doesn’t matter if you’re in Boston or not — will be a challenge. But it’s a good challenge. I love challenges,” Sturm said. “I know the expectations here. I know how it is. But as long as I’m putting my work and preparation in, I know I will be in good shape.”

Continue Reading

Trending