The Seattle Kraken have their first permanent emergency backup goalie (EBUG). Dolan Gilbert, a 25-year-old recent graduate of Michigan State University, will become the first player in franchise history to serve in the role after a change to the NHL’s collective bargaining agreement required every team to begin carrying a netminder they can plug into the lineup in a pinch.
“It’s pretty cool,” Gilbert said. “It’s fun getting to set the foundation and know that as long as this is the way it’s going, that you helped build it. I’ve chatted with a couple of the other guys I know that are doing it, and they feel very similarly.”
With the league’s rule change, gone are the days when a local Zamboni driver or accountant can suddenly wind up in an NHL game, perhaps even facing his hometown team. Instead, the NHL has shifted to having teams bring an extra goalie to every game, even on the road.
As the first to hold the position for the Kraken, Gilbert is still just feeling out what it will be like to be part of a professional hockey team, but he does have a general sense of what the job will entail.
“I’ll be traveling with the team per the new rules, so [participating in] scratch skates, injury skates, rehab skates or whatever they are, being available there. Giving some time off to the goalies on the Kraken, and let them be ready for game nights is the big thing.”
An unexpected call
A native of South Bend, Ind., Gilbert grew up a fan of Notre Dame, where his dad, Dave—who won an NCAA championship as a member of the Lake Superior State Lakers in 1992—served as equipment manager for the Irish. Dolan moved away from home at a relatively young age, playing AAA hockey for the 18U Ohio Blue Jackets, then spending two seasons with the Texas Jr. Brahmas in the NA3HL before going to Division III school Concordia University Wisconsin.
“I went [to Concordia] my freshman year. I didn’t love it, just as an environment, I felt like I wanted a change for myself personally and wanted more of an academic challenge. So I decided to transfer to Michigan State and semi-retire from hockey.”
After briefly thinking he was “hanging up” his skates for good, Gilbert ended up having a conversation with the coaching staff and skating a couple times when he arrived at MSU as a sophomore. As luck would have it, rising star Trey Augustine—a second-round draft pick of the Detroit Red Wings—made Team USA for the World Junior Championship. That meant the Spartans would be down a goalie throughout the holiday season.
“I realized that they were going to be a goalie short for a couple weeks while he was out and offered to be on campus and fill in for him. It was kind of my first big foot in the door, and then they offered me a full-time spot for the following year. I was there for two years and then graduated as a part of the team.”
With Augustine ahead of him, Gilbert unsurprisingly never got much playing time for the Spartans, appearing in just two games his senior year. So he was as surprised as anyone to get a recent call from Kraken goalie coach Colin Zulianello, gauging his interest in becoming Seattle’s first permanent EBUG.
“I still haven’t gotten the full story of how my name came up and whatnot,” Gilbert said. “They just wanted to get an idea if I was interested. We ended up chatting a little bit more, and then had an interview process and… got offered it.”
Gilbert assumes that, considering his minimal playing time in college, mutual connections between the MSU coaching staff and the Kraken are what led to his offer to join Seattle.
Now, just a couple years removed from thinking his playing career was over, and he would focus all his time on being a full-time student at Michigan State, Gilbert is a member of an NHL team and has a very real chance at one day playing in an NHL game.
Putting future plans on hold for now
It’s different talking to a guy like Gilbert—who knows an illustrious NHL career is likely not in the cards for him—compared with a full-time Kraken player, or even a youngster who has just been called up from Coachella Valley. Gilbert doesn’t have designs on backstopping a franchise to a Stanley Cup and becoming a household name. Instead, his plan is to one day work in sports psychology, a journey he’s temporarily paused while he sees through this remarkable and unexpected opportunity.
He got interested in that field playing for former pro hockey player Ben Eaves during his AAA days in Ohio. Being away from home for the first time was hard on Gilbert, and he said Eaves had a big impact on helping him work through some difficult times.
“[Eaves] is pretty dialed in. He got me interested in it. We talked about [psychology] a little bit at some lunches with each other, and then the more I dove into it and learned about it, I just fell in love with it and thought it was something that I was good at but also was interested in. It kept me in sports, and so I decided to pursue that through college.”
Already in Seattle and participating in informal captains practices with Kraken players, Gilbert did not think he’d still be in this position, strapping on the pads every day with NHLers.
“[Being an EBUG] was not on my radar. I had heard about it and kind of thought about it a little bit, obviously, with the rule change. And being a goalie, you’re kind of interested in it and whatnot… I was planning on just going to grad school [after earning a degree in psychology at MSU].”
In the meantime, he’s also going to work for the Kraken in a dual role in their research and development department, though the specifics of that position are still being worked out by the team. So while his sports psychology dreams are paused, he’s getting a crash course in both being a professional athlete and learning what happens behind the scenes.
“I think it’s an amazing experience, and getting to see more of the front office side of hockey is really cool. I’ve always seen the player side, so getting that side and getting my feet wet in that world is cool.”
Darren Brown
Darren Brown is the Chief Content Officer at soundofhockey.com and the host of the Sound Of Hockey Podcast. He is a member of the PHWA and is also usually SOH’s Twitter intern (but please pretend you don’t know that). Follow him @DarrenFunBrown and @sound_hockey or email darren@soundofhockey.com.
It’s getting to be that time of year. September is right around the corner. Junior teams in North America and Europe are reassembling for camp and preseason contests. The first draft showcase event, the Hlinka Gretzky Cup, is already in the books.
For prospect watchers, it means we’re officially on to the 2027 NHL Draft. A few analysts have already put out short preseason lists giving you a handful of high-end players to watch. Today, we’re digging deeper, getting you a list of 200 first-time eligible and 100 re-entry candidates for you to follow as the season progresses.
The “Data Score” approach
This is not a traditional scouting assessment of prospects. Instead, we built our watchlist using quantifiable data only. Think of it as a supplement to the scouting and analytical work on prospects being published by other sources like Elite Prospects. It can be revealing in its areas of agreement or disagreement with the work of traditional scouting services.
What does our data-only analysis involve? As I have done in years past when looking at NHL Draft prospects (or NHL-affiliated prospects), I have organized this player list by “Data Score”—a rough metric we came up with here at Sound Of Hockey. Data Score begins with the bedrock of an NHL equivalency (“NHLe”). NHLe is a method to compare the scoring proficiency of players in the various professional and junior leagues across the globe. I used Thibaud Chatel’s model, which is the most up-to-date public research in the area. Check out Chatel’s Substack for an in-depth discussion of NHLe. For this project, I used Chatel’s newest model, which has been updated to account for 2025-26 season data.
Before last season, I looked at only a one-year sample to create this list. Continuing my practice from last year, I applied this NHLe to multiple years of scoring data for these prospects—specifically the 2024-25 and 2025-26 seasons. More recent play is given more weight. I believe this is an important upgrade to the approach.
From there, as before, I make adjustments based on factors known to be linked to prospect success rates: (1) position, (2) height, (3) age, and (4) re-draft status. I also make a modest upward adjustment to the NHLe for low-scoring draft-eligible players playing in high-level professional leagues. (This is based on public research by Chace McCallum that was taken down when he started working for an NHL team.)
I also adjusted the underlying point-rate totals used in the process to give less weight to assists relative to goals. This is based on public research suggesting goal scoring is more predictive of future point production than assist totals, even primary assists.
It’s reassuring when I reach the end of this cumbersome data project and find out that the player who will be displayed atop the watchlist is a household name.
Landon DuPont is the consensus No. 1 overall prospect in the 2027 NHL Draft among draft analysts, and he lands at No. 1 on the watchlist too. The exceptional-status defenseman brings high-end transition and offensive-zone play, very strong zone-denial skills, and enough work ethic and physicality to contribute in the defensive zone too. He may profile a half step below the NHL’s premier sub-6-foot defensemen, Cale Makar and Quinn Hughes, but his 5-foot-11 frame shouldn’t limit him. I like the Miro Heiskanen comparison I’ve heard.
The statistical gulf between DuPont and the field is not nearly as wide as we saw last season at this time with Gavin McKenna, though. McKenna’s case is also a reminder that scouting opinions evolve quickly during the draft season. While McKenna ultimately did go No. 1 overall at the 2026 NHL Draft, there were times last season when public analysts wavered on him. If DuPont struggles in his transition to college hockey this season, could others get into the mix for No. 1 overall? Absolutely. (That said, personally, I think DuPont will find his feet quickly in the NCAA ranks.)
After DuPont, the blue-line class looks a bit thin right now. Levi Harper, Jake Prunty, Brock Cripps, and Kohyn Eshkawkogan have all been productive but measure at 5-foot-10 or 5-foot-11, which tends to ding a defense prospect lacking DuPont’s high-end profile. It’s possible some could end up as first-round picks in the Ryan Lin mold, but it’s difficult to confidently project any of them into the top half of the first round right now. At the other end of the spectrum, the defensemen who bring more size and physicality, like Mark L’Italien, have not shown anything resembling first-round scoring production.
In contrast, there is an intriguing blend of size, styles, and nationalities among the forward prospects. Nazar Privalov is a 6-foot-4 forward from Russia who draws raves for his offensive talent level. Jonah Neuenschwander is a 6-foot-3 Swiss forward who played more games in the Swiss National League than any 17-year-old ever has. Alexis Joseph is a 6-foot-5 QMJHL forward who could have as much skill as any forward in the draft if he can add the necessary compete level and skating. If not Joseph, maybe 6-foot-2 Swedish center Milan Sundström brings the most skill.
Alongside those first-off-the-bus prototypes, there are tenacious, bulldog forwards like Dima Zhiklin and skilled, playmaking centers like Jaxon Jacobson. With no consensus “top player” at this point, it has the makings of a very fun forward group to follow.
The U.S. National Team Development Program has gone through a few lean years, and the U18 Team could struggle again this season following the early exit of some key players. That said, the draft could see a handful of prospects with Program pedigree go early. Forwards Jamie Glance, Sammy Nelson, Carter Meyer, and Nolan Fitzhenry all sit within the top 15 on this preseason watchlist.
If there is a player group the watchlist has overrated in recent years, it is Russians playing in the MHL. I suspect there are a variety of explanations, but that’s probably a separate article. Regardless, it is fair to wonder if players like Andrei Pustovoy or Sergei Skvortsov may ultimately be drafted lower than their watchlist status suggests.
I also have my eye on Prunty, who is joining the U.S. National Team Development Program this season. He has not shown up on draft lists (yet), and it’s not hard to understand why (he’s listed at 5-foot-10, 154 pounds). That said, I’m curious to see what it looks like at the Program, particularly if he earns first-unit power-play time. The odds say he will be drafted far lower than his watchlist position.
Revisiting the 2026 NHL Draft preseason list
How much can you learn about a player’s draft projection from looking at biometric and scoring data from seasons before the draft year in question? As you might expect, it’s not perfect. Players—particularly first-time draft-eligible players—often take a very large statistical leap in their draft seasons as they continue to mature.
For example, the No. 3 overall pick in the 2026 NHL Draft, Caleb Malhotra, averaged just 0.6 points per game in the BCHL during his draft-minus-one season. He then proceeded to amaze scouts during the 2025-26 season by doubling his scoring output (1.25 points per game) after stepping up to the OHL level. Matthew Schaefer had a similar statistical leap the year prior before being selected No. 1 overall in the 2025 NHL Draft.
Could another elite player emerge from lower in these preseason rankings? It’s certainly possible. And there are always going to be players that teams and scouts “like” (or “dislike”) more than their scoring data would suggest.
That said, it is amazing how much you can learn even from scoring data predating the draft year. Looking back at the top of our 2026 NHL Draft preseason watchlist, draftniks will see a lot of familiar names. 13 of the top 15 on the preseason watchlist were ultimately drafted in the top 50, including the No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 overall picks. 13 of the preseason top 32 were selected in the first round, and all but two were ultimately drafted. (The two exceptions were Russian players, which, as mentioned, have proven hard to project of late.)
If you rewind to our 2025 NHL Draft preseason watchlist, it’s a similar story. Nine of the top 11 draft picks and 15 total first-round picks were within the preseason watchlist top 32. If you look to our 2024 NHL Draft preseason watchlist, you’ll find that four of the top five picks in the 2024 NHL Draft were in our preseason top 32, as well as 15 first-round picks overall.
These results almost replicate the success rate of source-consulting prospect analysts evaluating the landscape at this time of year. For example, in fall 2024, Corey Pronman—who is as well-sourced as any prospect analyst currently working—correctly predicted 19 first-round skaters on his initial 2025 draft first-round board.
The accuracy of the watchlist as a predictive tool declines the deeper you go into it, but the success rate at the top of the list gives me confidence that the Data Score approach can serve its purpose as a guide to tracking players who could end up being high draft picks.
Local connections
While DuPont will play his draft season at the University of Michigan rather than in Everett, Wash., there are still a number of local prospects worth following from a draft perspective. Most notably, Brock England, a center for the Seattle Thunderbirds, projects as a potential first-round pick. England is a relatively young draft-eligible player and has already topped 50 points in the WHL.
Elsewhere, Boston Tait, a 6-foot-2 defenseman for the Wenatchee Wild; Rhett Sather, a 5-foot-11 defenseman for the Spokane Chiefs; and Crew Martinson, a 6-foot-2 forward for the Tri-City Americans, are three other Washington-based players checking in within the top 75 on this preseason watchlist.
* * *
Do you have any questions? Reach out to us in the comments below or on Twitter/X @deepseahockey or @sound_hockey or on BlueSky at @deepseahockey or @soundofhockey.com.
Header photo of Landon DuPont taken by Evan Morud, courtesy Everett Silvertips.
Curtis Isacke
Curtis is a Sound Of Hockey contributor and member of the Kraken press corps. Curtis is an attorney by day, and he has read the NHL collective bargaining agreement and bylaws so you don’t have to. He can be found analyzing the Kraken, NHL Draft, and other hockey topics on Twitter and Bluesky @deepseahockey.
Aside from a shooting‑percentage bender in 2022–23, the Seattle Kraken haven’t exactly been known as a high‑scoring team. But last season’s offensive output felt particularly challenging. Lane Lambert arrived with a reputation for structure and defensive responsibility, and the Kraken have certainly leaned into that identity. Now that we have a full season of Lambert hockey to look at, it feels fair to ask how much his coaching impacted the team’s goal scoring.
There are a few questions I want to explore: how did Lambert’s teams score before and after his tenure with the Islanders? How does Kraken scoring compare across their three coaches? And what happens to individual players’ goal rates when they play for Lambert? Maybe we’ll find a pattern. Maybe we’ll find nothing at all. Either way, these are the questions worth poking at.
As always, there are caveats and known limitations baked into this kind of analysis. For starters, this is a high‑level, simplified approach to measuring offensive impact. I might expand on shots, shooting percentage, and shot attempts, but even then we’ll be missing a lot of contextual factors. One obvious example: teams playing with a lead in the third period tend to score less because there’s no urgency to push offense. Over the first two months of the 2025–26 season, Lambert’s Kraken looked perfectly content prioritizing defensive structure over offensive generation in third periods.
Another caveat is personnel changes from season to season and coach to coach, whether through injuries or roster turnover. I’ll call out some of those changes as we move through the exploration.
Lambert’s Islanders tenure
Lane Lambert was named head coach of the New York Islanders in the summer of 2022 and lasted roughly a season and a half before being let go on Jan. 20, 2024. He finished with a 61‑46‑20 record and guided the team back to the Stanley Cup Playoffs in his first season. With the Islanders, we can compare both his predecessor, Barry Trotz, and his successor, Patrick Roy.
It’s a little surprising to see Lambert’s Islanders posting the highest average goals‑for per game of the three coaches, especially considering the scoring dip we saw in Seattle. Breaking it down by season gives us a bit more context.
When Roy took over mid‑season in 2023–24, he squeezed out an additional 0.12 goals per game from the same roster. That’s not a huge bump, but it’s enough to swing a couple of standings points. For fun, let’s also look at shots on goal per game and shooting percentage.
Again, nothing materially different between the three coaching tenures.
Islanders roster changes and player production
To paint a fuller picture, here are some of the more notable roster changes across the three regimes:
Trotz → Lambert subtrations: The biggest offensive subtraction was Jordan Eberle, who left a season before Lambert arrived. Eberle had been one of the Islanders’ top scorers before being selected by Seattle in the Expansion Draft.
Additions under Lambert: Bo Horvat joined mid‑season in Lambert’s first year. Pierre Engvall, Hudson Fasching, and Simon Holmstrom also arrived — serviceable forwards, but not major offensive drivers.
Lambert → Roy subtractions: Zach Parise and Anthony Beauvillier played portions of Lambert’s tenure but not Roy’s.
Roy additions: Anthony Duclair, Tony DeAngelo, Emil Heineman, and Matthew Schaeffer all contributed offensively under Roy but not Lambert.
Here’s how goals per game shook out for players who overlapped at least two of the three tenures. (Red = higher goal rate; blue = lower.)
There’s nothing particularly significant here, with the possible exception of Brock Nelson, who scored roughly 0.06 more goals per game under Lambert than under either Trotz or Roy, about five extra goals over a full season.
The Kraken’s three‑coach history
As mentioned above, there’s no denying the Kraken struggled to score last season. They averaged 2.73 goals per game — 28th in the league — down from 2.99 under Dan Bylsma in 2024–25. That was the sixth‑biggest drop in the NHL.
We already know the offensive decline from Bylsma to Lambert was steep, but zooming out to include the Hakstol era gives us more information.
The drop from Bylsma to Lambert was significant but still better than the non‑playoff Hakstol years. The falloff from 2022–23 to 2023–24 was also substantial, but the roster got noticeably worse over that span. Pierre‑Edouard Bellemare and Kailer Yamamoto were expected to replace the 44 goals lost from Ryan Donato (14), Morgan Geekie (9), and Daniel Sprong (21).
Now let’s look at shots on goal and shooting percentage by coach.
One insight to consider might be the relatively low shot volume under Lambert compared to previous coaches. But when Lambert coached the Islanders, they had the highest shot volume of the three tenures. And again, shot volume is tricky; teams shoot less when they’re winning, and that’s exactly what we saw early in 2025–26.
To illustrate the point, here’s a breakdown of average shots on goal in 10‑game increments with win percentage in those 10 games noted at the bottom of each bar. In three of their coldest stretches (shown in blue), they actually averaged their highest shot totals.
Kraken roster changes and player production
As with the Islanders, here are the notable roster changes across Kraken coaches:
Hakstol → Bylsma subtractions: Alex Wennberg, Ryan Donato, and Morgan Geekie were the biggest offensive losses.
Additions under Bylsma: Chandler Stephenson, Brandon Montour, and half a season of Kaapo Kakko.
Bylsma → Lambert subtractions: Oliver Bjorkstrand, Andre Burakovsky, and Yanni Gourde were all traded before Lambert arrived.
Additions under Lambert: Mason Marchment (29 games before being traded), Freddy Gaudreau, and rookie Berkly Catton.
Here are the average goals per game for players who played significant minutes under two or more coaches.
Vince Dunn, Brandon Montour, Jaden Schwartz, Eeli Tolvanen, and Shane Wright all saw their goal production dip under Lambert, while Jordan Eberle and Jared McCann saw increases. To really understand the root causes, we’d need to dig into ice time, power‑play usage, and shot rates and that is beyond the scope of this analysis (for now).
The Lambert scoring impact
After walking through all of this, I’m not convinced we can pin the Kraken’s scoring issues squarely on Lane Lambert’s systems. The numbers just don’t support a clean, tidy narrative. Yes, Seattle’s goal scoring dipped in his first season, and yes, several individual players saw their production slide. But Lambert’s Islanders teams didn’t show the same pattern, and in some cases even scored more under his watch. That inconsistency suggests the Kraken’s offensive struggles are likely a blend of system, roster construction, usage, and plain old variance, not a single, coach‑driven cause.
If anything, the broader takeaway is that the Kraken have been living on the edge of their offensive talent pool for a while now. When the roster thins, the scoring dries up. When the roster deepens, the scoring rebounds. Lambert’s structure may tighten the margins, but it doesn’t appear to inherently suppress offense the way some feared. That gives at least a little hope that the 2025–26 scoring woes aren’t permanent fixtures of the Lambert era.
The more interesting question might be what happens next. With Mackie Samoskevich arriving, Bobby McMann stepping into a full season, and Berkly Catton entering his sophomore year, the Kraken have a few upward‑trending pieces who can tilt the ice offensively. If those players hit, and if Lambert’s system continues to stabilize the defensive side of the puck, Seattle could find a healthier balance, one where structure doesn’t come at the expense of scoring.
The system isn’t the ceiling, and the Kraken’s offensive future probably depends more on who’s wearing the sweaters than who’s standing behind the bench.
Welcome to Friday Film Room, our offseason Seattle Kraken prospects series here at Sound Of Hockey. Today, we’ll look at gameplay video, data, and analysis of defenseman Rylan Singh, Seattle’s first of two seventh-round picks in the 2026 NHL Draft, and forward Julius Miettinen, the team’s 2024 second-round pick.
If you like these breakdowns, stop by every Friday because we’ll have two per week (one 2026 Kraken draft pick and one other organization prospect) until Kraken players are back on the ice for camp this fall.
Any suggestions or questions for future posts? Please let us know below or on social media at @deepseahockey or @sound_hockey.
Rylan Singh | Defenseman | Guelph Storm (OHL)
Profile: Right shot | 18 years old | 6-foot | 187 lbs | 2026 Seattle Kraken seventh-round pick (unsigned)
Summary: Singh is a mobile two-way defenseman who drives play through skating, puck movement, and dogged engagement habits. The right-shot blueliner’s intelligence and hard-working style show up consistently; even without overwhelming size or on-puck talent, he finds ways to slant play to his team’s advantage with smaller contributions. Defensively, Singh excels against the rush with strong gap control, angling, and stick work. Offensively, he fuels controlled exits and quick transitions, while also contributing point shots and some timely activations, particularly on the rush.
At this point, Singh lacks a carrying physical skill, shows limited offensive creativity, and there are examples of inconsistent puck execution in the defensive zone under pressure. Even so, his hockey sense, solid skating, and strong overall puck movement profile are a good foundation for further development.
Video: Singh is the right-shot defenseman wearing No. 4 in black.
Strengths
Very good competitiveness and work ethic; consistently impacts the game through effort and engagement.
Strong rush defender with excellent gap control, backward skating, angling, and an ability to take away the middle.
Very good mobility, showing effective four-way skating and the ability to recover defensively.
Reliable puck mover who can execute first passes, breakouts, and transition play quickly.
Generally comfortable under pressure; can move pucks through forechecks and create clean zone exits.
Strong hockey sense and awareness of timing when activating into the offensive zone.
Willing offensive contributor who joins rushes, works give-and-go sequences, and attacks open space.
Good shot from the point that can create scoring chances through traffic and deflections.
Has played significant minutes in all situations and demonstrates coachability and trustworthiness.
Physically engaged defender who uses stick work, positioning, and contact to disrupt opponents.
Creates offense through pace and quick decision-making rather than relying solely on skill plays.
Effective on zone entries and connective passes as a power-play quarterback.
Weaknesses:
Average size and limited physical explosiveness may reduce his effectiveness against bigger opponents.
Skating is effective but lacks elite acceleration and explosive separation speed.
Board battles, physical play, and net-front presence can be inconsistent despite evident effort.
Offensive game lacks a defining or game-changing element that separates him from other defenders.
Offensive vision waned at times, with rushed decisions on the puck, moving it too quickly before creating an advantage.
Offensive-zone creativity is functional but not high-end; showed limited manipulation skill.
Shot and point production may not translate without additional deception and creativity in his offensive game.
Puck skills can be inconsistent; issues with clean receptions, passes, and maintaining possession under pressure showed up on tape.
Occasional turnovers, particularly when attempting difficult plays or handling pressure in his own zone.
At times, his defensive-zone positioning and stick detail felt inconsistent.
Notes: Singh’s motor, four-way mobility, and willingness to push offensive play made him a reliable top-pair junior defender. He projects as an asset on breakouts and between the blue lines. Without significant added elements to his in-zone offensive or defensive play, though, Singh’s projection may top out in the depth category professionally. That said, what he does well fits where the NHL game is going. If he can truly max out, his profile falls somewhere between Ryker Evans and Cale Fleury as an average-sized, complementary puck mover from the blue line.
Julius Miettinen | Forward | Coachella Valley Firebirds (AHL)
Profile: Left shot | 20 years old | 6-foot-4 | 207 lbs | 2024 Seattle Kraken second-round pick (signed)
Summary: Julius Miettinen is a big, athletic, and intelligent two-way center whose value comes from his support play, defensive awareness, and ability to connect offensive sequences. He consistently wins puck battles, creates a net-front presence, and positions himself well in all three zones. While not a dynamic puck carrier or primary offensive driver, he makes quick, effective plays, complements skilled linemates, and occasionally flashes above-average playmaking.
His biggest limitation is inconsistent in-game skating, which can grade as below average in both acceleration and agility. This limits his ability to protect the puck through the middle and drive controlled zone entries. There were times, particularly late in his junior tenure, that the transition skill seemed to be trending up, but it remains to be seen if that can translate as Miettinen escalates to professional competition. Miettinen has also missed time with a few different injuries during his career to date.
Video: Miettinen is the left-shot center wearing No. 17 in green.
Strengths:
Size (6-foot-4), strength, and athleticism to impact the game all over the ice.
Potential shutdown defensive center with strong defensive awareness, positioning, low support, puck retrievals, and backchecking habits.
Excellent support player who consistently provides outlets and arrives in the right areas.
Uses his size and reach effectively to win puck battles, protect possession, and disrupt opponents.
Reliable net-front presence, creating screens, rebounds, and second-chance opportunities, including on the power play.
Productive along the boards and in other physically contested scenarios; uses his body to separate opponents from the puck.
Effective at protecting the puck in the offensive-zone cycle game.
Makes quick, accurate short-area passes and connects offensive plays well.
High hockey IQ with strong anticipation and understanding of offensive and defensive structure.
Versatile linemate who complements skilled players without needing the puck.
Strong work rate and attention to detail in all three zones.
Adequate shot that plays up in contested scenarios.
Profiles as a core penalty killer.
Flashes as—and has the athletic traits to become consistently—an average or better functional skater for his size once in motion.
Dominated as a 20-year-old junior player like you would hope; he led the WHL playoffs in scoring and was third in both regular-season and playoff plus-minus (No. 1 in total plus-minus combining the regular and postseasons).
Asset on face-offs (60.6% in 2025-26 regular season, 57.8% in 2025-26 playoffs).
Weaknesses:
Overall, he has shown marginally below-average skating to date; in particular, his first-step acceleration, agility, and edge work need development.
Limited ability to generate controlled zone entries or consistently drive transition play.
Offensive creativity is more complementary than dynamic.
Puck handling and technical skill along the boards have been inconsistent and could use further refinement.
Passing execution and decision-making can occasionally lack precision and high-end creativity.
Doesn’t consistently impose his physical tools despite his size.
At this point, his offensive ceiling is tied to others possessing and driving possession rather than creating it himself.
Projects more as a complementary, supporting center than a true top-nine offensive driver.
Dealt with several separate injuries during his junior career.
Notes: Miettinen has NHL size and a lot of physical tools. He currently projects as a reliable bottom-six, defense-first center in the NHL. There is upside for more if he improves his skating game and can develop a bulldog puck-protection style to drive offensive possession as a “change-up” to his sound off-puck and net-front work. The skill level likely isn’t there for him to reliably score in the top six, but he has the chance to max out as a third-liner with some streaky offensive production—particularly as a net-front player on the power play—and excellent defensive impacts.
Curtis is a Sound Of Hockey contributor and member of the Kraken press corps. Curtis is an attorney by day, and he has read the NHL collective bargaining agreement and bylaws so you don’t have to. He can be found analyzing the Kraken, NHL Draft, and other hockey topics on Twitter and Bluesky @deepseahockey.
Last month we hit the five-year anniversary of the Seattle Kraken Expansion Draft. Since that momentous day in 2021, media and hockey fans have engaged in countless hours of debate over the Kraken’s strategy and success procuring talent in that process.
Did the Kraken overplay their hand or miss other opportunities to profit? Were NHL general managers “smarter” after getting exploited by the Golden Knights four years earlier?
The foundation the Kraken built on that pristine July day at Gas Works Park delivered one invigorating playoff run in the franchise’s second year. Otherwise, the team has finished in the bottom 10 in the standings every season. This track record caused the Kraken to fire multiple head coaches and sever ties with former general manager Ron Francis.
Five years on, it seems like a natural time to reflect on the expansion process. Of the many different ways one could do that, I settled on the following prompt: With the full benefit of hindsight, what team could the Kraken have built through expansion?
In addition to being a fun trip down memory lane, building this “best-case scenario” roster allows us some perspective to answer some of the more difficult expansion-related questions we’ve debated. Most notably, we can learn something about whether the opportunity actually existed to build an immediate contender.
2021 Seattle Kraken Expansion Draft, Gas Works Park, Seattle, WA
The re-draft rules
Of course, we’re going to follow the same basic rules the Kraken followed. Select one unprotected player from each of the other NHL teams except Vegas. The goal is to build a functional NHL roster that is cap-compliant and has some depth that can be slipped through waivers to the AHL level.
To avoid making assumptions that are unfair to the Kraken, though, we instituted two additional limitations on this thought exercise.
First, we will not sign any player who did not sign with Seattle in reality. For example, we will not suggest that the Kraken simply should have dropped a bag of money on Zach Hyman as a free agent. This is because we have no way of knowing if Hyman would have signed with Seattle or, if he would have, the type of contract it would have required.
Similarly, second, we will not assume that the Kraken are able to make any trades that they did not in fact execute. Again, a trade depends on the consent of an outside party that we have no way of fairly confirming.
This is a significant restriction on our flexibility going into this re-draft because, as we know, Seattle did not make any needle-moving draft-and-flip trades or side deals. It also prevents us from speculating about additional transactions.
As much as I wanted the Kraken to make a deal for Sam Reinhart in July, 2021, we cannot be sure that Buffalo would have accepted a first-round pick and an expansion-drafted goalie from Seattle over Florida’s superficially similar proposal. Buffalo might have been uniquely high on getting Devon Levi, or Florida may have upped its offer to get the player anyway.
The only fair way to approach this is to avoid these types of uncertain scenarios entirely.
The actual Kraken Expansion Draft
Here’s how the Expansion Draft actually went on July 21, 2021:
Two things stand out. First, the Kraken avoided a number of higher-priced players (like James van Riemsdyk, Vladimir Tarasenko, Matt Duchene, and others), preserving significant flexibility into the free agency period. The Kraken then wielded this advantage to secure Philipp Grubauer, Jaden Schwartz, Alex Wennberg, and others.
Second, the Kraken left some picks “on the table,” so to speak, selecting unsigned players Gavin Bayreuther and John Quenneville apparently without any plan to actually keep them. Quenneville and Carsen Twarynski never played an NHL game post-draft and Chris Driedger, Kole Lind, and Alex True each got into fewer than 30 games over the ensuing five years (worth noting, Driedger’s ACL injury at the IIHF World Championships in 2022 almost certainly shortened his tenure with the Kraken).
I continue to struggle with the logic behind some (not all) of these picks in retrospect. Of course, not all 30 players can go on an NHL roster. But even if trades were not there to be made, it would seem that other realistic depth options could have been acquired and stashed in the AHL. In our scenario below, we use the benefit of hindsight to avoid these types of value losses.
Kole Lind played 24 regular-season games for the Seattle Kraken. (photo/Brian Liesse)
The “Hindsight” Kraken Expansion Re-Draft
Before getting into it pick-by-pick, a few notes. I ended up selecting 12 of the same players the team did originally. With only a couple of understandable exceptions, the team did well selecting each of the very best players available.
In hindsight, above-average defensemen on reasonable contracts were very easy to find in this draft. I opted against drafting a number of quality unprotected defenders like Olli Määttä, Brett Kulak, Radko Gudas, and Mark Giordano, simply because there were superior alternatives, all things considered. This is the area where our restriction on “hypothetical” trades hurt the most. Ideally, I would have walked away with draft assets in return for either not selecting or flipping these players.
In contrast, the forward and goalie pools were relatively slim, even with our hindsight advantage. With respect to the forward group, one challenge was that a small handful of teams, notably Nashville and Tampa Bay, held several of the most appealing forwards, but we could only get one from each team. On the goalie side, many of the most productive players were unrestricted free agents going into the Expansion Draft. And given our “rules,” we were essentially limited to building a team around free agent Philipp Grubauer or the few viable candidates under contract (or team control) through the expansion process. This really limited the options and team upside.
OK, let’s analyze the draft picks team-by-team in alphabetical order. An asterisk indicates the player was Seattle’s original selection. After we go through that list, we’ll finish with a summary of the draft and some takeaways.
Anaheim Ducks – Adam Henrique | Pos: C | Shot: L | Age: 31
Other players considered – Sonny Milano, Danton Heinen, Anthony Stolarz
For much of the five years since the Expansion Draft, Henrique has been an offense-driving, second-line forward. The rest of the time, he has been sidelined with injuries. Injury risk was a known factor at the time of the draft, too. With 29 other picks yet to go, we can build in some center redundancy to protect ourselves. Offense is at a premium in this draft, and Henrique’s skill is too much to pass up. Henrique averages 20 goals a season over the three years remaining on his deal at draft time.
Milano has been an analytics darling but has never been able to secure a regular NHL role and recently signed in Europe. Heinen is an underrated middle-six winger. Stolarz is one of the best goaltenders available, and there is a very good case to take him, particularly given the positional scarcity. That said, the team feels a top-six forward short without Henrique.
Arizona Coyotes – Hudson Fasching | Pos: F | Shot: R | Age: 25
Contract – RFA (signed to $750,000 cap hit through 2021-22 post-draft)
Other players considered – Tyler Pitlick*, Michael Bunting (UFA)
Fasching is a depth forward who delivered solid results in a part-time, fourth-line role. He’d start as a 13th or 14th forward and could head to the waiver wire for assignment to the AHL in Year 1 if the team gets fully healthy at any point.
Another option would be to select Pitlick and flip him to the Flames for a fourth-round pick as the Kraken did originally, but Fasching offers more long-term value than a fourth-round pick. Bunting would be the obvious choice if he came with a contract or team control.
Boston Bruins – Curtis Lazar | Pos: C/F | Shot: R | Age: 26
Other players considered – Jeremy Lauzon*, Connor Clifton, Sean Kuraly (UFA)
Lazar is a fourth-line forward who brings strong defensive and penalty-kill value and right-side draw ability. His overall value is probably comparable to some of the alternatives listed, including original pick Lauzon, but the scarcity of forwards in the draft pushes us toward Lazar.
Lauzon had trade value for Seattle (he returned a second-round pick that became Jani Nyman), but there are other defensemen available to draft and flip that should have even better value.
Buffalo Sabres – William Borgen* | Pos: D | Shot: R | Age: 24
Contract – RFA (signed to $900,000 cap hit through 2022-23 post-draft)
Other players considered – Colin Miller (UFA), Jake McCabe (UFA)
Speaking of which, this brings us to Will Borgen, the Kraken’s actual pick from Buffalo. He remains the standout choice here, but would enter a crowded third-pair depth chart post-draft. The concept would be to seek a preseason trade for two of the other NHL-caliber defenseman selected (see Chicago and Minnesota) and keep Borgen as a developmental third-pair defenseman. Failing success on that front, it’s possible Borgen is lost on waivers before he skates in a game for Seattle.
Calgary Flames – Justin Kirkland | Pos: F | Shot: L | Age: 24
Contract – RFA (signed to $750,000 cap hit through 2021-22 post-draft)
Other players considered – Derek Ryan (UFA), Mark Giordano*
Kirkland is a 6-foot-3 depth forward who was stashed for much of the 2021-22 season in the AHL. That would be our plan for him. His five-year outlook is like the forward version of Cale Fleury: solid up-and-down depth.
Selecting Mark Giordano in this slot makes sense if you can flip him before the season for similar assets Seattle actually obtained at the 2022 NHL Trade Deadline. Two second-round picks are much more valuable than the depth Kirkland provides. Again, though, this is an assumption about the availability of such a trade that we did not want to make. Absent an assured trade, it didn’t seem right (professionally or financially) to take the long-time Calgary captain without a plan to actually play him.
Carolina Hurricanes – Morgan Geekie* | Pos: F | Shot: R | Age: 23
Contract – RFA (signed to $750,000 cap hit through 2021-22 post-draft)
Other players considered – Nino Niederreiter, Dougie Hamilton (UFA)
Morgan Geekie was the Kraken’s original choice, and he remains the correct one. With the benefit of hindsight, it should be a priority to work him into an offense-first role on the wing with skilled players within the first few years. He’s one of the youngest eligible players and projects to deliver top-10 value. The key is development and patience. With a bit more of that, he could help drive the offense by 2024-25.
Niederreiter is a second intriguing forward option who would provide more inaugural season value that Geekie, but I still prefer the younger forward over the long term. Carolina’s other intriguing players are unrestricted free agents, thus not a real consideration here.
Morgan Geekie (Photo/Brian Liesse)
Chicago Blackhawks – Nikita Zadorov | Pos: D | Shot: L | Age: 26
Other players considered – Calvin De Haan, Adam Gaudette
Both at the time and with the benefit of hindsight, there is little debate Zadorov was the most valuable player from Chicago’s roster available to be selected. He brings size, physicality, and some scoring to the blue line. On the downside, he was an unsigned 26 year-old restricted free agent looking for a big contract at the time of the draft.
As foreshadowed above, the concept would be to seek a pre-season trade of Zadorov. (In reality, Zadorov was traded during the summer of 2021, so this should be possible.) Failing such a deal, Zadorov would enter a crowded defense corps to begin the 2021-22 season. The goal would be to message patience to the player until a deal to break the logjam is stuck.
Author’s Note: Due to a necessary adjustment of the Vancouver pick (see below), I adjusted this pick as well away from forward Adam Gaudette after this article was originally posted.I chose Gaudette originally because he could start as AHL depth and would later establish himself as viable complementary NHL scorer. With the Vancouver selection shifting from a depth defenseman to a depth forward, however, I shifted this pick over to the blue line to re-balance the expansion roster.
Other players considered – Kiefer Sherwood, Brandon Saad (UFA)
Compher is a solid third-line scorer and play driver who can play center or wing. He gives us necessary cover to play up and down the lineup, with two other drafted centers (see Anaheim and Tampa Bay) bringing injury questions. On a two-year, $3.5 million AAV deal, he’s an easy piece to slot in or deal in the team’s first or second year if a reset is needed.
Sherwood arguably delivers more value over the five-year period, but that’s with very little production in the first few years. This raises doubts as to whether he could stick with the team long enough to realize those goals for the Kraken.
Joonas Donskoi was a reasonable pick at the time, but we know he would struggle to score in his only healthy season with the Kraken.
Columbus Blue Jackets – Kevin Stenlund | Pos: F | Shot: R | Age: 24
Contract – RFA (signed to $1,050,000 cap hit through 2021-22 post-draft)
Stenlund would begin as a depth piece, either as 13th or 14th forward or, more likely, spending the 2021-22 season in the AHL as he did for Columbus. After that, he’s an option in the 11th-14th forward range, bringing strong work on the face-off dot and a right shot with a 6-foot-3 frame.
Max Domi is an offense-only winger who would be an appealing pick if we could line up a side deal to flip him elsewhere. The Kraken’s need for offense is not so desperate in this scenario that it is worth taking on Domi in the lineup, particularly at his cap hit.
Dallas Stars – Jamie Oleksiak* | Pos: D | Shot: L | Age: 28
There are better short-term values to be found on the blue line than the five-year, $4.6 million AAV contract the Kraken signed Jamie Oleksiak to before the Expansion Draft. But Oleksiak’s first three years with Seattle were terrific, particularly defensively, and Dallas has very little else to offer. Ultimately, sticking with Seattle’s original sign-and-draft strategy achieved the best roster balance. Oleksiak was unfairly criticized in his time with the Kraken.
Detroit Red Wings – Vladislav Namestnikov | Pos: F | Shot: L | Age: 28
Namestnikov is a quality middle-six winger who can score and play solid defense. In a draft short on top-nine forwards, he’s an easy choice. With one year and $1 million left on his contract, he’s a trade deadline asset if the season doesn’t go well.
Stecher is a solid player, but there are probably a couple dozen better defensemen available.
Edmonton Oilers – Adam Larsson* | Pos: D | Shot: R | Age: 28
Similar to the situation with Oleksiak, it could be argued that there were better values to be found on the blue line, but two factors worked in Larsson’s favor. The first is the leadership and close on-ice working relationship we know he developed with Vince Dunn (more on Dunn in a minute). The other factor is that Edmonton didn’t have much else to offer beyond unrestricted free agents and depth pieces. All told, Larsson, who badly needed a change of scenery at the time, was an easy choice to sign-and-draft again.
Florida Panthers – Sam Montembeault | Pos: G | Age: 24
Contract – RFA (signed to $750,000 cap hit through 2021-22 post-draft)
5-yr outlook – Games: 206 GAA: 3.28 Save %: .897 EH GSAx: 50.74
Other players considered – Radko Gudas, Brandon Montour (UFA), Noel Acciari
Florida had a number of interesting pieces to consider. In particular, Radko Gudas would have brought identity and production to the top-four defensively. That said, Sam Montembeault has ascended on a path similar to fellow 24-year-old backstop Joey Daccord (more on him below). The chance to obtain a long-term tandem goalie was too much to pass up.
In the short term, Montembeault would project as the Kraken’s backup for the 2021-22 season. His production was not good that year, but shouldn’t cripple the inaugural team if he’s only used in sheltered matchups behind a better starter.
Los Angeles Kings – Blake Lizotte | Pos: C/F | Shot: L | Age: 23
This came down to a choice between Lizotte, who is an undersized, hard-working identity forward, or Maatta, a capable second-pair defenseman. Generally speaking, the abundance of defenders pushed us toward the offensive player. But Lizotte is also a good roster fit regardless. He is capable of playing anywhere in the bottom six, winning face-offs, and delivering quality penalty-kill results. Lizotte was a personal favorite originally at the time of the Expansion Draft, and he has overperformed even my optimistic view of him in the five years since.
Minnesota Wild – Carson Soucy* | Pos: D | Shot: L | Age: 26
Other players considered – Marcus Johansson (UFA), Nick Bjugstad (UFA)
Similar to the situation with the Buffalo pick, Seattle’s original selection, Carson Soucy, was clearly correct. This is in part because the player ultimately provided solid production in the years ahead and in part because the Wild had little else to offer beyond unrestricted free agents and goalie Kaapo Kähkönen, who flamed out.
As with Zadorov, my goal would be to find an immediate taker for Soucy in return for real draft capital. Failing that, he could start in (unfortunate) healthy-scratch territory. The priority would then be to communicate the situation with the player and continue to seek a trade over time. Soucy is good enough that a worthwhile trade should materialize at some point even if we cannot “predict” it under our rules.
Carson Soucy (Photo/Brian Liesse)
Montreal Canadiens – Cale Fleury* | Pos: D | Shot: R | Age: 22
Contract – RFA (signed to $750,000 cap hit through 2021-22 post-draft)
Other players considered – Brett Kulak, Jonathan Drouin, Charlie Lindgren (UFA)
I considered going with Brett Kulak—another capable, above-average defenseman available in this draft—but like Soucy, Zadorov, and/or Borgen before him, he wasn’t going to crack the lineup, and we’d be looking for an immediate trade. Similar to my calculus in avoiding the a few other competent defensemen, an overabundance of drafted blueliners becomes untenable and detrimental to the team’s leverage at a certain point.
In contrast, the team’s original pick, Cale Fleury, can serve as solid blue-line depth. As we know, he’d make it through waivers to spend time in the AHL and eventually earn an extra role with the NHL team. As one of the younger eligible players, having Fleury as a “next wave” and contingency plan is valuable.
Jonathan Drouin bounced back and offered some offensive value in the years ahead, but I couldn’t quite bring myself to take on the contract, particularly with other suspect offensive spends already on the books, like Henrique.
Nashville Predators – Matt Duchene | Pos: C | Shot: L | Age: 30
Other players considered – Yakov Trenin, Erik Haula (UFA), Mikael Granlund (UFA), Connor Ingram
In hindsight, Nashville had a number of valuable forwards to offer, a scarce thing in this draft. Seattle’s original pick, Calle Jarnkrok, was not a bad one, but he didn’t crack the top handful of options when I was whittling it down with the benefit of hindsight.
If you recall, Matt Duchene and Ryan Johansen were two big-contract forwards coming off down seasons that seemed to bring a lot of risk at draft time. As it turns out, both players bounced back to provide positive value in the short term.
Between them, Duchene, with his 43 goals in the 2021-22 season, is the clear choice and a linchpin of our re-draft. He’s our first-line offensive center for the inaugural era. He’s below average in that capacity, all things considered, but it could be argued that the actual Kraken have not had any first-line center throughout their existence. Duchene brings needed offensive punch and a fighting chance at the playoffs in Year 1. (Even after his stellar 2021-22 season, Duchene would go on to average 24 goals per season over the final four years of his contract.)
New Jersey Devils – Scott Wedgewood | Pos: G | Age: 28
Contract – $825,000 cap hit through 2021-22
5-yr outlook – Games: 159 GAA: 2.58 Save %: .911 EH GSAx: 36.78
Other players considered – A.J. Greer
Wedgewood has emerged since the Expansion Draft as a productive tandem goalie. He’s not going to dominate, but there weren’t any other options materially better. He’d come to Seattle on just a one-year contract, but would be an early extension candidate if he posted an approximately average 2021-22 season, as he did for New Jersey in reality.
Bastian may have also been considered in this spot, but for our hindsight perspective on his actual dissatisfaction playing for the Kraken. Greer has been better than Bastian anyway and would have been a good depth-forward pickup but for the need for a goalie.
New York Islanders– Jordan Eberle* | Pos: F | Shot: R | Age: 31
Other players considered – Kyle Palmieri (UFA), Parker Wotherspoon
Eberle maintained his productivity for the five post-draft seasons in Seattle and has ultimately ascended to the role of team captain. In this scenario, he may have taken over that formal leadership mantle even earlier and upped his overall production by playing next to a capable finishing center like Duchene. In hindsight, the Islanders didn’t have any other options even close to Eberle.
New York Rangers– Julien Gauthier | Pos: F | Shot: R | Age: 23
Gauthier is a depth fill-in who would project to spend most or all of the 2021-22 season in the AHL. These players are essential for the first few years, until the team has built a prospect pipeline. Raddysh is a very interesting right-shot defenseman who broke out in 2025-26, but as a group-six unrestricted free agent without a contract, he was not a viable consideration under our rules.
5-yr outlook – Games: 164 GAA: 2.80 Save %: .904 EH GSAx: 43.56
Other players considered – Michael Amadio, Anton Forsberg (UFA)
Amadio has emerged as a quality middle-six forward and was quite tempting in a draft light on offensive impact. That said, the team’s actual pick, goalie Joey Daccord, remains the right pick. Daccord brings more value as a long-term starter or 1A goaltender. Add in Daccord’s leadership qualities, particularly through a couple of AHL playoff runs, and this was not a difficult choice.
Philadelphia Flyers – Shayne Gostisbehere | Pos: D | Shot: L | Age: 28
There was negative discourse about Gostisbehere’s contract and defense at the time of the Expansion Draft, but he has carried on to show that he adds a ton of value with his offensive play driving from the backend. Particularly on a team that can give him a first-unit power-play role and an offense-favorable, sheltered third-pair position, he can move the needle. In this scenario, we build the blue line with that role in mind for Gostisbehere.
James van Riemsdyk was a much-discussed player ahead of the draft, and he ultimately had something of a middle-road outcome. He didn’t go off the rails as some feared, but he also didn’t produce quite to the level of the contract. He wouldn’t have been a terrible pick in retrospect, but we can make the offense work without him, so we avoid taking on that contract.
Pittsburgh Penguins – Marcus Pettersson | Pos: D | Shot: L | Age: 25
Other players considered – Jason Zucker, Evan Rodrigues (UFA), Mark Jankowski, Zach Aston-Reese, Casey DeSmith
Back in 2021, Pettersson was an ascending, well-rounded defenseman, locked in for four years of his prime at a reasonable rate. Selected in tandem with Vince Dunn (see below), the Kraken would have the left side of their top-four defense corps locked in for the foreseeable future.
Though original pick Brandon Tanev brought value at times during his tenure in Seattle, he was not even in the top five or six most interesting Penguins players with the benefit of hindsight. I strongly considered Zucker to inject a little more offense into the inaugural team, but Pettersson being four years younger was just too appealing in the end.
San Jose Sharks – Jacob Middleton | Pos: D | Shot: L | Age: 25
From a relatively limited set of options, two names stood out on San Jose’s unprotected list: defenseman Jake Middleton and forward Ryan Donato. Donato was ultimately non-tendered by the Sharks and went on to sign with Seattle in free agency, so there was no “need” in this hindsight draft to select Donato (more on Donato in a moment). That left Middleton, who is an above-average third-pair defenseman on a cheap contract. Middleton would likely serve as healthy-scratch depth and valuable insurance on a stacked Kraken blue line in Year 1.
St. Louis Blues – Vince Dunn* | Pos: D | Shot: L | Age: 24
Contract – RFA (signed to $4,000,000 cap hit through 2022-23 post-draft)
Other players considered – Jake Walman, Vladimir Tarasenko, Jaden Schwartz (UFA)
In reality, the Kraken selected Vince Dunn, a young, high-upside defenseman. Dunn has proven that pick right. He has been one of the most valuable players left unprotected in 2021 and a stalwart on Seattle’s top pair (in the post-Giordano era, at least). He remains one of the three-or-four most valuable players obtained by the Kraken in this re-draft.
Tarasenko was a popular name at the time as one of the few “first-line” forwards available. He had taken a step back, was on a big contract, and there were injury questions casting doubt on whether he’d be worth it. In fact, Tarasenko likely was “worth it” as an offense-first player. But his defense has always been quite poor, and there were enough other options out there to avoid sacrificing the team’s defensive identity. Plus, Dunn is just a younger and better player. So, it was easy in the end. Similar to the situation with the Pittsburgh pick, I couldn’t justify moving to an older, slightly lesser player just because he could bring frontline scoring.
Tampa Bay Lightning – Yanni Gourde* | Pos: C/F | Shot: L | Age: 29
Other players considered – Alex Killorn, Ross Colton, Ondrej Palat, Blake Coleman (UFA)
Yanni Gourde was the on-ice standard-bearer and an off-ice leader for the Seattle Kraken for the length of his tenure. He was the team’s best player in a forgettable inaugural season and the driver of perhaps the best third line in hockey during the team’s second year. In some sense, he’s the only right pick from Tampa Bay.
That said, Tampa Bay had a lot to offer. I was at least momentarily tempted to pivot toward Alex Killorn, a top-six winger who continued to score in our five-year sample, and Ross Colton, a younger, ascending bottom-six player.
Yanni Gourde (Photo/Brian Liesse)
Toronto Maple Leafs – Jared McCann* | Pos: F | Shot: L | Age: 25
Other players considered – Zach Hyman (UFA), Frederik Andersen (UFA)
The easiest choice in this entire exercise is to draft Jared McCann again. According to Evolving Hockey, no other player eligible to be selected in the Expansion Draft has generated more on-ice shot-quality value than McCann. He is second only to Duchene in total points among unprotected players with team control at the time of the draft. McCann was a home-run pick then and the only choice again in retrospect. It’s chilling to think of what the Kraken’s first five years might have looked like without McCann.
Vancouver Canucks – Kole Lind* | Pos: F | Shot: R | Age: 22
Contract – RFA (signed to $874,125 cap hit through 2021-22 post-draft)
Other players considered – Jimmy Vesey (UFA), Jalen Chatfield (UFA), Guillaume Brisebois
If the Expansion Draft was a game for the 30 clubs potentially losing players, in a sense the Vancouver Canucks won it. No team had fewer viable players it could lose than Vancouver. So, that’s something for the Canucks to celebrate, I guess.
I stuck with the Kraken’s original pick Kole Lind. He has not established himself in the NHL, but he posted gaudy AHL numbers and was a big part of a few deep playoff runs at that level. He was solid depth to have during his time in the Kraken system.
Author’s Note: I had originally indicated I would select Jalen Chatfield in this position, but an astute reader pointed out that Chatfield was a “Group 6” unrestricted free agent and not a restricted free agent at the time of the draft. Given our rules, that takes him outside of our consideration. This caused me to adjust this pick and one other (Chicago) to rebalance the team’s depth.
Washington Capitals – Garnet Hathaway | Pos: F | Shot: R | Age: 29
Other players considered – Vitek Vanecek*, Nic Dowd, Brenden Dillon
Hathaway is a hard-to-play-against, defense-first, bottom-six player who can handle heavy penalty-kill minutes. His hitting, energy, and all-around hard-nosed approach fills the void created by passing on Tanev.
The original pick, goalie Vitek Vanecek, has some merit here. He has proven to be more like a backup-quality goalie over the course of his career, but that’s still a good player to have, particularly as insurance in Year 1. If there were a reasonable path toward keeping three goalies on the NHL roster, I may have done it.
Winnipeg Jets – Dylan DeMelo | Pos: D | Shot: R | Age: 28
DeMelo is a quality, prime-aged right-shot defenseman on a bargain contract (three years, $3 million AAV remaining). He’s an easy choice and would be a stalwart in the top four for the Kraken.
The Kraken’s real pick, Mason Appleton, had facts to recommend him at the time, but the fit in Seattle did not work.
* * *
Free Agency – Jaden Schwartz | Pos: F | Shot: L | Age: 29
Following the completion of the expansion process, we would have the Kraken sign Donato and Schwartz. Donato was a significant net positive in his first season, providing valuable depth goal scoring on a minimum contract. Schwartz missed a good deal of time over five years. But this re-drafted team needed another top-nine forward, and Schwartz always contributed when he was out there. It’s not a great contract to have, but maybe a necessary one.
Marcus Johansson was another cheap, quality signing that I considered, but with the benefit of hindsight, we can commit to Geekie as an offense-first winger in lieu of bringing in the veteran Swede.
Alex Wennberg was a very useful player for the Kraken, but with the selection of Henrique (and to a lesser extent Compher), there was just no place for him in the lineup. For a while, I considered drafting Stolarz and staying away from Henrique in favor of signing Wennberg again. But I landed where I did in an effort to generate more offense.
Contrasting narratives
The talking points surrounding this version of the Seattle Kraken going into Year 1 would have been quite different from what we actually got. In contrast with the praise for acquiring Philipp Grubauer and Chris Driedger, analysts would have (fairly) wondered whether this Seattle team had even one tandem-quality goaltender.
Beyond that, pundits would have questioned whether the Kraken erred in betting big on the risky, high-priced Matt Duchene and Adam Henrique. In comparison with the real Kraken draft, which eschewed any “bad” contracts, there would have been a narrative that Seattle may have made mistakes there.
Recapping the draft
Assuming that some type of pre-season trade can materialize for Soucy and Zadorov, our expansion process gets us the following 23-man roster (plus one player on IR) to begin the season:
If trades prove impossible for some reason, Will Borgen and Jake Middleton would likely go to waivers, and the team would likely lose both. Soucy and Zadorov would be a healthy scratches to start.
On the other hand, based on real-world events, it’s likely that the following players would make it through waivers for inaugural-season AHL assignment:
Assuming Zadorov and Soucy are out, the team’s five-year cap sheet would look like this:
This team would project to score in the range of 250 to 260 goals, which would be around league average. On the defensive side of things, the goaltending would be below average in Year 1. But the blue line should be a strength, probably ranking in the top quarter of the league.
All told, could this be a Year 1 playoff team? It’s close. The team should at least be in contention down the stretch.
What we learned
The Kraken left some future value on the table with their Expansion Draft picks. This is not surprising for a team notoriously bereft of a crystal ball.
That said, even a “best-case scenario” of draft picks and free-agent signings like the one set forth above yields only a competitive team, not a first-year Stanley Cup Finalist. This underscores that without a fundamentally different or more creative approach, a Vegas-style outcome wasn’t really on the table.
Could the team have been more inventive? I suspect so, but we cannot say that definitively. We just do not know what the conversations with other teams (and players) looked like at the time. It’s reasonable to believe other teams were more circumspect after dealing with Vegas years earlier.
Regardless, I hope you enjoyed that trip down memory lane as much as I did. Did it spur any thoughts for you? What would you have done differently? Let us know in the comments below.
Curtis Isacke
Curtis is a Sound Of Hockey contributor and member of the Kraken press corps. Curtis is an attorney by day, and he has read the NHL collective bargaining agreement and bylaws so you don’t have to. He can be found analyzing the Kraken, NHL Draft, and other hockey topics on Twitter and Bluesky @deepseahockey.
Welcome to Friday Film Room, our offseason Seattle Kraken prospects series here at Sound Of Hockey. Today, we’ll look at gameplay video, data, and analysis of Vicktor Fyodorov, the first-ever Russian-born forward to be drafted or signed by the Kraken organization, and Jagger Firkus, a second-round pick in 2022 and Seattle’s second-leading AHL scorer during the 2025-26 season. These are two players I like a lot, so I’m excited to dig in.
If you like these breakdowns, stop by every Friday because we’ll have two per week (one 2026 Kraken draft pick and one other organization prospect) until Kraken players are back on the ice for camp this fall.
Any suggestions or questions for future posts? Please let us know below or on social media at @deepseahockey or @sound_hockey.
Viktor Fyodorov | Center/Winger | Chaika Nizhny Novgorod (KHL)
Profile: Left shot | 18 years old | 5-foot-10 | 183 lbs | 2026 Seattle Kraken fourth-round pick (unsigned)
Summary: Viktor Fyodorov (a.k.a. Viktor Fedorov) is a two-way center who succeeds with strong processing, a relentless work ethic, solid playmaking habits, and attention to detail. He drives possession through anticipation, puck retrievals, defensive pressure, and quick connective passing rather than dynamic individual skill. His off-puck awareness, scanning, and transition support are among his best traits, making him a reliable player in all three zones.
His NHL projection is limited by an undersized frame, average skating for his size, and inconsistent offensive creation and finishing against stronger competition. If Fyodorov continues to develop, he projects as a complementary, bottom-six, forechecking-and-defense forward.
Video: Fyodrov is the left-shot center wearing No. 41 in blue.
Strengths:
Very strong, potentially excellent hockey sense, anticipation, and ice vision could carry him a long way.
Processes the game quickly and consistently makes smart decisions.
Instinctual off-puck positioning in all three zones; he’s usually in the right place defensively and in transition support.
High-end defensive habits, including bucket-emptying backchecks.
Always forechecking; frequently a productive tip-of-the-spear neutral-zone defender.
Relentless motor and consistent competitiveness.
Strong puck retrievals and ability to extend offensive-zone possession.
Quick, accurate short-area and connective passer with solid one-touch passing ability.
Reliable transition player who links defensive recoveries into offensive possessions.
Physical engagement habits are very strong despite below-average size.
Very good defensive stick detail, including lifts, passing-lane disruptions, and puck pressure.
Has shown soft hands in tight areas to maintain possession and drive offense.
Good puck protection through body positioning and deception.
Seems to play well within systems and should be a coachable, translatable type of player.
Gained experience against pro-level competition in his draft-minus-one year (VHL, KHL) and held his own in a limited role, finding ways to contribute.
Captain for his junior team (MHL), which suggests leadership ability.
Position versatile.
Weaknesses:
Undersized frame can limit his disruption, recovery, and protection abilities against stronger competition.
Physical strength limits his ability in puck battles and at the net front against higher-level competition.
Lacks above-average offensive upside and game-breaking individual skill; relies heavily on systems and teammates rather than creating offense independently.
Average skating explosiveness and top-end speed relative to his size.
Passing can lack creativity and tends toward safe, schemed plays.
Finishing ability and shot are below average.
Offensive production often falls short of the quality of his underlying process and does not, itself, suggest an NHL future.
Questions remain whether he will be able to generate enough offense to survive against NHL-caliber defenders.
Ceiling seems more complementary than impactful, with a bottom-six NHL projection if he reaches that level.
Notes: Fyodorov has strong hockey sense and work habits and has demonstrated the capacity to match up against quality competition. He has a complementary skill set that lacks obvious dynamic elements. A sustained, impactful NHL career likely hinges on bolstering his strengths such that the totality of his small contributions drives team advantages all over the ice (think Yanni Gourde with Seattle). Continued strength and skating improvements are necessary. I’m high on this player, probably more so than most.
Jagger Firkus | Forward | Coachella Valley Firebirds (AHL)
Profile: Right shot | 22 years old | 5-foot-11 | 163 lbs | 2022 Seattle Kraken second-round pick (signed)
Summary: Jagger Firkus is a skilled, offense-first winger whose game is driven by creativity and great hands that he uses to create offense in a variety of ways. He has strong hockey sense and scanning habits that help him find soft ice, allowing him space to create quick shooting opportunities and precision passes. His shot is a significant asset, with a deceptive, quick release. His vision as both a finisher and playmaker is excellent.
His motor is strong, and he’s a willing forechecker despite his modest size. While his evolving play along the boards has improved his NHL prospects, he remains physically limited. He can force plays off the rush. If he continues adding strength and refining his offensive execution, an NHL future as a scoring winger with power-play value is in play.
Video: Firkus is the right-shot forward wearing No. 57 in white.
Strengths:
Very strong hockey sense, making proactive reads with and without the puck.
Dangerous shooter with a quick, deceptive, and versatile release.
Innate ability to find open space off the puck.
Creative playmaker capable of slip passes, delays, and other innovative sequences.
High-energy motor with consistent forechecking pressure and puck pursuit.
Agile, elusive puck handler who creates separation with cutbacks, deceptions, and pace changes rather than pure speed (akin to Matty Beniers in this way).
Improved ability to handle pressure and make plays along the boards.
Competes hard despite his smaller frame, including on net drives and in puck battles.
Succeeded in a first-line role at the AHL level during the 2025-26 season, averaging 0.9 points per game and proving trustworthy in all three zones while playing heavy minutes.
Regularly generated offense, including high-danger looks for himself, even when the points weren’t coming.
Though he does not dominate possession, when you lose him in coverage, he will quickly link scoring sequences.
Intelligent player who knows his game well, including the areas that need improvement.
Weaknesses:
Wants to play with pace in transition attacks but lacks the pure speed to threaten professional defenders.
Undersized and still loses puck battles due to limited strength.
Production can be limited when engaged physically by defenders.
Can be knocked off the puck too easily when unable to gain separation.
Occasionally forces one-on-one attacks rather than protecting possession for another opportunity.
While the shot is an asset overall, there were times his accuracy wavered, particularly in tight, contested situations; he ought to have been a 30-goal scorer last season.
Skating has improved through hard work but is not a carrying trait.
He makes his wiry 5-foot-11 frame work, but size and length will never be assets.
Has some feel for disruptions high in the defensive zone, but overall defensive production is modest.
Questions remain about his ability to level up to the NHL due to his underwhelming combination of size, speed, and strength.
Notes: Firkus has three traits that are hard to find: hockey sense, gifted hands, and the intelligence and commitment to self-assess and improve his game. These traits have carried him to the top of the AHL ranks despite consistent scouting skepticism about his physical profile. He’s a problem solver out there, and I do believe there is a path to NHL contributions for a team that is patient enough to stick with him through an initial transition period. His ceiling may be a complementary, middle-six scorer, but he has the aptitude and mindset to reach it.
Curtis is a Sound Of Hockey contributor and member of the Kraken press corps. Curtis is an attorney by day, and he has read the NHL collective bargaining agreement and bylaws so you don’t have to. He can be found analyzing the Kraken, NHL Draft, and other hockey topics on Twitter and Bluesky @deepseahockey.
Washington is one of nine states with no state income tax. Within those nine states are six NHL teams:
Florida Panthers (Florida)
Tampa Bay Lightning (Florida)
Dallas Stars (Texas)
Nashville Predators (Tennessee)
Vegas Golden Knights (Nevada)
Seattle Kraken (Washington)
NHL teams span the United States and Canada, and income tax rates vary by country, state, province, and city.
Let’s start with a blanket disclaimer. Taxes vary significantly based on an individual’s situation. This article will focus on how income tax applies at a high level.
First, we’ll look at how NHL players are taxed and run through some hypothetical examples. Then we’ll determine whether the Kraken benefit from playing in a state without an income tax.
Types of income tax
Income taxes can be assessed at the federal, state or provincial, and city levels. Many jurisdictions use marginal tax rates.
This chart shows the top marginal tax rate for each team’s location, which provides a rough indication of how states rank from lowest to highest income tax.
Looking at this graph alone, it appears the Kraken and other no-income-tax teams have a significant advantage when it comes to signing players. But the way taxes are calculated is more complicated and is not based solely on a player’s team location.
Duty days
NHL players don’t just pay taxes where their team is based. They can also owe taxes in locations where they travel for work. These are calculated using “duty days.” Games, practices, team meetings, road travel, and other team-related activities can count as duty days.
There are 185 days in the NHL regular season. With training camp and preseason added, we’ll round that number to 200 duty days.
For example, the Seattle Kraken will travel to Boston this season. Let’s assume they spend two duty days in Massachusetts and the player makes $10 million per year (there are no Kraken players making $10 million currently, but this gives us easy math).
Massachusetts has a 5 percent state income tax if income is under $1 million. The player’s Massachusetts income would represent two of his 200 duty days.
The calculation would be:
This calculation continues for each state or province where the player works.
Crossing the U.S.-Canada border can add another layer. So can playing in cities that impose their own income taxes. You can see how this gets complicated quickly.
Profile players
Let’s look at estimated taxes for players across all 32 NHL teams.
We’ll use five salary levels: $900,000, $3 million, $6 million, $10 million, and $15 million.
The model assumes 88 games, including an 84-game regular season and four preseason games.
It also assumes two duty days for each of 44 road games. That produces 88 road duty days and 112 home duty days.
The 84-game regular-season schedule breaks down as follows:
Four games against each divisional opponent: 28 games
Three games against each non-divisional conference opponent: 24 games
Two games against each team in the other conference: 32 games
Divisional and interconference matchups have equal numbers of home and road games.
The three-game conference matchups are different. Some teams will play twice at home, while others will play twice on the road.
That creates some variability because the tax rate depends on where those additional road games are played.
Division and conference alignment also matter.
Division
Average tax rate
Pacific
46.8%
Atlantic
46.5%
Metropolitan
45.7%
Central
42.4%
Canada and California have some of the league’s highest income tax rates. The Pacific Division includes six teams from Canada and California which causes an uptick in the division due to road duty days in high-tax locations.
Residency
The player profiles above assume the player establishes tax residency where their NHL team is located. If they do not, taxes will also depend on the rules of their primary residence.
Every jurisdiction has different residency rules. However, several factors commonly help determine someone’s primary tax residence:
Maintaining a permanent year-round residence
Where a spouse or children live
How much time the person spends in a jurisdiction
Residency is highly dependent on each player’s circumstances. Establishing residency can be easier when a player’s spouse and children move with him and maintain a year-round home.
It can be more difficult for young prospects. Players on entry-level contracts may find it harder to afford a year-round residence, and without a spouse or children they may have fewer personal ties that support establishing residency there.
The key here is just because a player plays in a high-tax location, such as Toronto, does not necessarily mean all his income faces Toronto’s tax rate.
Signing bonuses
Another wrinkle in taxes is how NHL compensation can come in the form of salary or signing bonuses.
The Canada-U.S. tax treaty handles signing bonuses differently from regular salary. Tax on qualifying signing bonuses can be capped at 15 percent.
This can particularly benefit U.S. residents playing in Canada.
For example, a U.S. player in Canada would pay only 15 percent Canadian tax on a qualifying signing bonus. He would then owe up to an additional 22 percent (to get to 37 percent) in U.S. federal tax on that income, subject to applicable foreign tax credits.
Auston Matthews example
Auston Matthews is an Arizona resident for tax purposes. He maintains a year-round home there and has family ties to the state.
His contract also pays most of his compensation through signing bonuses.
About 94 percent of his four-year contract comes through signing bonuses, totaling $49.65 million of the $53 million contract.
His actual salary is therefore near the league minimum. Matthews is scheduled to earn $11.08 million in 2026-27. Of that, $10.18 million is a signing bonus and $900,000 is salary.
Here’s how the estimated tax bill breaks down:
$1.53 million: 15 percent Canadian tax on the $10.18 million signing bonus
$2.19 million: Approximately 22 percent additional marginal tax to the IRS
$254,000: Arizona state income tax at 2.5 percent
$451,000: Estimated duty-day taxes tied to his $900,000 salary
Despite Toronto’s overall top income tax rate of roughly 53.5 percent, Matthews’ estimated effective tax rate is about 39.9 percent.
That leaves approximately $6.66 million of his $11.08 million in compensation after income taxes.
Leo Carlsson example
Let’s look at another player who has been all over hockey news after signing an $18 million offer sheet.
Leo Carlsson is a Swedish citizen who plays in another high-tax location: Anaheim, California.
Roughly 95 percent of Carlsson’s $90 million contract, or $85.3 million, comes through signing bonuses.
For the upcoming season, he will receive a $19.95 million signing bonus and $850,000 in salary.
Here’s how the estimated tax bill breaks down:
$7.33 million: 36.75 percent federal income tax
$2.62 million: 13.15 percent California state income tax
$435,000: Estimated duty-day taxes on his $850,000 salary
Carlsson will earn $20.8 million and pay an estimated $10.39 million in taxes, an effective rate of 49.95 percent.
That assumes he is considered a California resident for tax purposes. Carlsson spends his offseason in Sweden. If Sweden is considered his tax residence, he could also be subject to Sweden’s tax rules. Using a Swedish income tax rate of 50.6 percent, Carlsson could owe roughly another $125,000 as a tax top-up.
Had Anaheim not matched the offer sheet, Carlsson’s estimated take-home pay in Philadelphia would have increased by about $870,000 to $11.26 million.
Stanley Cup champions
Going back to the 2005 lockout, 17 of the past 21 Stanley Cup champions come from teams that rank in the league’s lower half in terms of income tax rates.
The trend becomes even more pronounced recently.
The past seven Stanley Cup champions have come from eight teams ranked in the league’s lowest-tax quartile. Those eight include the six teams in states without an income tax, plus Colorado and Carolina.
Does this help the Kraken?
The short answer is yes, but the benefit depends heavily on each player’s tax residency.
When a player establishes residency where his team plays, the difference can be substantial. In some examples, take-home pay differs by 30 to 35 percent between the lowest- and highest-tax locations.
Across every salary level in this model, Seattle ranks among the six teams with the lowest estimated taxes. Those six are all the teams located in states without a state income tax. However, players need to establish Washington as their tax residence to realize the full benefit.
Philipp Grubauer lives in the Pacific Northwest year-round. Former Seattle Kraken, Jamie Oleksiak, used to call the Seattle area home year-round. Many players, however, spend their offseason somewhere else.
Non-U.S. players could receive a significant tax benefit from establishing residency in Washington. U.S. players can benefit as well, although the difference may be smaller unless they are coming from places such as California or New York City.
For the right player, the tax savings could make Seattle financially attractive.
Millionaires’ tax
Washington has passed a millionaires’ tax scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2028. That could significantly reduce Seattle’s current tax advantage for NHL players.
For stars earning north of $10 million, the new tax would put Seattle in the top third of the league’s highest tax locations.
For established middle-six players, Seattle would move closer to the middle of the league, while it would remain one of the lowest-tax locations for prospects and players earning near the league minimum.
Jason Robertson provides an interesting example.
Robertson recently rejected a $15 million contract from the Kraken and eventually signed a one-year, $12 million deal with Dallas.
At first glance, leaving $3 million on the table seems remarkable. But once Washington’s millionaires’ tax takes effect, the estimated take-home amounts become much closer. As shown above, a $15 million Seattle salary would produce approximately $7.7 million in take-home pay. Recognizing Robertson’s new deal will expire before the new tax kicks in, it’s still worth noting that a $12 million salary in Dallas would produce approximately $7.3 million in take-home pay.
That’s a difference of only about $400,000, and that’s before we take into account the fact that the cost of living is at least 25 percent cheaper in Dallas compared with Seattle.
It’s still meaningful money, but a $400,000 delta between the Seattle offer and the Dallas offer is nowhere near the $3 million discrepancy we saw on the contracts’ face values.
There is obviously more involved in Robertson’s decision than taxes. Still, the example illustrates how different income tax rates can produce surprisingly similar take-home pay.
Final thoughts
I know everyone’s favorite topic is taxes, but all good things must come to an end.
There are also factors beyond NHL salary, including endorsements or sales tax, that can further complicate a player’s tax situation. Ultimately, taxes need to be evaluated player by player. Residency, contract structure, family circumstances, and salary levels can all change the equation.
Seattle’s lack of state income tax does provide the Kraken with an advantage today, but how meaningful that advantage is depends on the player. And beginning in 2028, the equation could look much different.
If you have any questions, please leave them in the comments below.
Blaiz Grubic
Blaiz Grubic is a contributor at Sound Of Hockey. A passionate hockey fan and player for over 30 years, Blaiz grew up in the Pacific Northwest and is an alumni of Washington State University (Go Cougs!). When he’s not playing, watching, or writing about hockey, he enjoys quality time with his wife and daughter or getting out on a golf course for a quick round. Follow @blaizg on BlueSky or X.
It’s become an annual tradition here at Sound Of Hockey to dig into the latest USA Hockey registration numbers, and the 2025‑26 season gives us plenty to chew on. Membership continues to climb nationwide, but the story this year is less about explosive growth and more about steady, sustainable momentum, especially in youth and female participation. As always, these numbers offer a helpful proxy for the sport’s overall health in the United States, and this season’s data paints a picture of a game that’s still expanding, even as some markets begin to bump up against real‑world constraints like ice availability. Here’s what stood out.
Year‑over‑year growth
USA Hockey memberships increased again in 2025‑26, rising 1.4 percent over last season. That marks the fourth straight year of growth, a reassuring trend as the sport continues to stabilize post‑pandemic. The 8,138 new members added this year represent the smallest increase since COVID disruptions, but the total membership number, 586,002, is the highest USA Hockey has ever recorded. The previous record was set just last season, reinforcing that even modest gains are still pushing the sport to new highs.
The biggest drivers of this growth remain youth and female participation. Youth hockey added roughly 6,400 new members, while female registrations climbed by about 4,900. Those categories aren’t mutually exclusive, but together they show where the strongest momentum continues to build.
Washington State: Steady but constrained
Washington State added another 454 memberships this season, continuing a consistent upward trajectory. But that figure also represents the smallest annual increase since the Kraken arrived, and the reason is likely due to ice capacity.
The greater Seattle area is simply running out of room. Most rinks are operating at or near full utilization, and without new sheets coming online, growth is naturally throttled. The Kirkland Kraken facility remains one more season away, so any meaningful bump from that project is still on the horizon.
Even with those constraints, Washington’s numbers remain encouraging, especially in one particular category.
Washington’s female hockey surge
One of the brightest spots in the Washington state numbers is the growth of female hockey. Despite the lack of available ice, the state added 230 new female memberships this season. Excluding pandemic‑affected years, that’s the largest single‑season increase Washington has ever posted.
It’s impossible to ignore the impact of the Seattle Torrent here. The arrival of a PWHL team has clearly energized the local women’s hockey community, creating visibility, inspiration, and momentum that’s translating directly into registrations.
Utah, Nevada, and Washington: A comparative look
Utah continues to be one of the most fascinating growth stories in USA Hockey. The state added 1,914 new members this season, bringing its two‑season total to 3,297, a staggering 78 percent increase since the Utah Mammoth arrived. The NHL’s presence is clearly accelerating hockey’s footprint there at a pace few other markets have matched.
For comparison:
Nevada has added 3,995 total members over nine seasons since the Golden Knights’ debut.
Washington has added 2,506 members since the Kraken arrived, using the pre‑pandemic 2019‑20 season as a baseline.
Those differences aren’t judgments, though, they’re reflections of context. Population, number of ice sheets, geographic distribution, and even team performance all play meaningful roles in how quickly a market can grow. Utah’s surge is remarkable, but it’s also happening in a state with ample room to expand and a franchise aggressively investing in grassroots development. Even with Utah’s extra capacity, that hasn’t stopped Ryan Smith from investing in hockey infrastructure for the long term.
The outlook
Looking ahead, there are several reasons to expect another strong year of growth across USA Hockey.
Historically, states with NHL teams that win the Stanley Cup see a membership bump the following season, so North Carolina should be poised for an increase. Beyond that, both the Men’s and Women’s Olympic gold medals in Milan are likely to generate nationwide enthusiasm and participation.
And with the PWHL expanding into Detroit, San Jose, and Vegas, female hockey should see additional boosts in those markets as new teams create visibility and inspire local players.
The sport’s growth may not be explosive everywhere, but the underlying trend remains hockey in the United States is still expanding, still diversifying, and still finding new footholds in markets big and small.
Welcome to Friday Film Room, our offseason Seattle Kraken prospects series here at Sound Of Hockey. Today, we’ll look at gameplay video, data, and analysis of defenseman Hawke Huff, the first-ever Washington-born player to be drafted or signed by the Kraken organization, and forward Jake O’Brien, Seattle’s top pick in the 2025 draft and premier scoring prospect.
If you like these breakdowns, stop by every Friday because we’ll have two per week (one 2026 Kraken draft pick and one other organization prospect) until Kraken players are back on the ice for camp this fall.
Any suggestions or questions for future posts? Please let us know below or on social media at @deepseahockey or @sound_hockey.
Hawke Huff | Defenseman | Univ. of St. Thomas (NCAA)
Profile: Right shot | 20 years old | 6-foot-3 | 198 lbs | 2026 Seattle Kraken fifth-round pick (unsigned)
Summary: Luken Hawke Huff is a long, athletic, and dependable two-way defenseman who broke out as a top USHL blueliner in 2025-26. He has demonstrated physicality, competitiveness, defensive awareness, and quality skating while handling heavy minutes against junior competition. He excels at defending rushes, winning battles, and retrieving pucks under pressure. Particularly over the last year, he has also shown a feel for offense, puck-moving ability, and a willingness to join the attack. Continued development of his puck skills and explosiveness is necessary and will determine his ultimate upside. The runway is relatively short compared with that of a typical 2026 draft pick. He was a third-time entrant and is already 20 years old.
Video: Huff is the right-shot defenseman wearing No. 4 in green.
Strengths:
Very solid foundation of size, defensive instincts, and physical tools for professional projection.
Strong physical presence, though he typically wins battles through contact absorption, wall play, and puck protection rather than relying solely on big hits.
Proficient in puck retrievals, displaying a variety of skills to defeat pressure.
Excellent compete level and willingness to engage opponents in difficult areas.
Reliable defensive defenseman with strong gap control, reach, timing, and ability to defend rushes.
Versatile player who has played both sides of the ice during his junior career.
Strong current skating due to recent improvements; he shows better stride extension, depth, and mobility compared to previous seasons.
Natural mover, getting to defensive landmarks and creating plays.
Effective in all situations, with strong defensive instincts on the penalty kill and the agility and vision to competently play the blue line on the power play.
Production did not regress despite increased responsibility and heavy minutes.
Active offensively; willing to join rushes and occasionally lead transitions.
Solid passing skills within the team’s structure.
Weaknesses:
While there are promising elements, he’s not a high-end skater, and he needs to prove his recent improvements are permanent; more power and explosiveness should be attainable.
Offensive creativity and playmaking ability remain limited.
Puck handling and offensive stick skills are not positive assets at this stage.
Rarely makes truly creative or unexpected passes; attacks opponents in a more basic fashion.
Flashes as a puck transporter but will need to become more consistent to succeed at higher levels.
Needs to develop greater aggression and assertiveness to leverage his physical skill set.
Needs offensive growth and skill refinement to project as anything more than a reliable third-pair professional defenseman.
Late-developing prospect who was drafted at the very end of his eligibility window; Huff is two weeks older than Berkly Catton.
System rank: 15-30 (organizational depth).
Notes: Huff is getting a chance, despite being a late bloomer, because he is a 6-foot-3 right-shot defenseman. Even so, I was impressed by Huff’s athleticism and movement skills relative to his peers at Development Camp. Notwithstanding earlier scouting reports that questioned Huff’s agility and explosiveness, I thought his skating was a positive component of his profile. If he can build on what we saw at Development Camp and make skating pace an asset, one can easily envision a professional game built on proficient retrievals, controlled exits, and up-ice puck movement. I suspect I’m higher on him than most.
I have little problem projecting Huff as a solid AHL prospect, but the on-puck skills will need to come along if he’s going to be more than that. He will have several years at the University of St. Thomas (now an NCHC school) to build up his game against quality competition and prove there is another level to his game.
Jake O’Brien | Forward | Coachella Valley Firebirds (AHL)
Profile: Right shot | 19 years old | 6-foot-2 | 176 lbs | 2025 Seattle Kraken first-round pick (signed)
Summary: Jake O’Brien is a highly intelligent, creative playmaking forward who shows elite ice vision, a deep bag of deceptions, and difference-making passing skill to drive offense at even strength, but particularly on the power play. Though he lacks game-changing speed or physicality, he is able to win and create offensive advantages by getting to the correct areas off the puck and manipulating defenders with changes of pace, fakes, and strong puck handling.
His defensive game and off-puck habits have improved steadily, increasing his two-way value and giving him a chance to stick at center as a professional. That said, a future as a playmaking winger who is free to rove the offensive zone and find soft spots to create shots and passing lanes also fits his profile.
He is willing to go to the middle and attempt interior shots, but his projection depends on adding strength, elevating his pace to professional standards, and embracing a mindset of playing through defensive contact.
Video: O’Brien is the right-shot forward wearing No. 44 in white.
Strengths:
Elite vision and passing creativity from all angles and puck positions.
Outstanding deception with his hands, body fakes, and changes of pace.
High-end power-play half-boards quarterback capable of dissecting defenses with seam passes others do not see or attempt; he can single-handedly elevate a unit’s in-zone production.
Has shown the ability to control the puck and maintain composure through traffic at the junior level.
Manipulates defenders to open passing lanes and create space for teammates.
Strong offensive processing and anticipation.
Shows a willingness to drive the net front, absorb defensive abuse, and work through checks for rebounds.
Solid shot with a quick release when he chooses to use it, though he often errs on the side of playmaking.
Reliable off-puck support and offensive positioning.
Defensive game has taken meaningful strides, with strong positioning, stick detail, lane denial, and puck retrievals.
Good height (6-foot-1.5) and stick reach help him offensively and defensively.
Weaknesses:
Solid athlete but will not defeat professional defenders purely with size, speed, or agility.
Needs to add strength to win board battles and handle physical pressure.
Solid production in puck battles declines along the boards.
Physical engagement and consistency under heavy forechecking pressure remain question marks as he transitions to the professional game.
Below-average pace and acceleration limit his separation and transition effectiveness.
Limited explosiveness reduces his ability to consistently beat defenders one-on-one.
Needs to develop a more direct, north-south attacking style, even if only as a “changeup” to open up his delays and east-west game.
Pass-first mentality leads to missed shooting opportunities and overcomplicated decisions.
Can overhandle the puck or delay too long, resulting in turnovers.
Needs to improve his puck-protection ability if his delays, fakes, and deceptions intended to elicit defensive overcommitment and open passing lanes are going to work.
Has some east-west tendencies and a propensity for extended possession plays that may be less effective at the NHL level.
Does not create as much offense at 5-on-5 compared with his stellar power-play impact.
There are times when, out of frustration or otherwise, he will force low-percentage or hopeful passes.
System rank: No. 2 (top-of-the-lineup NHL player).
Notes: Scott Wheeler of The Athleticreported that O’Brien missed this summer’s World Junior Summer Showcase because he was in Seattle receiving treatment for knee tendinitis. Geoff Baker’s article linked above highlights O’Brien’s strength-training work in Seattle in recent weeks but makes no reference to a knee issue. This is a situation to monitor as we head into Kraken training camp. Is O’Brien fully healthy with added strength or is there a lingering knee issue that needs to be managed?
Longterm, O’Brien’s value turns on his ability to create offense professionally as he did at the junior level. His game may appear “quiet” for long stretches since he cannot impose his will with raw speed or power. But if you forget about him for even a moment, he’ll set up high-danger chances with high-end, no-look, cross-seam, or give-and-go passing sequences. His offensive processing and game instincts are his separators. But to deploy them, he will need to level up his pace and physical strength. It will take some time in the AHL, perhaps even two full years. But the upside at the end could be a Mitch Marner-like (light?) offensive driver who is a threat to create scoring opportunities for his teammates at any moment and approach point-per-game status with first-unit power-play time at his peak.
Curtis is a Sound Of Hockey contributor and member of the Kraken press corps. Curtis is an attorney by day, and he has read the NHL collective bargaining agreement and bylaws so you don’t have to. He can be found analyzing the Kraken, NHL Draft, and other hockey topics on Twitter and Bluesky @deepseahockey.
This offseason has brought a steady stream of roster movement across the Pacific Division. Between an unusually high number of trades, a wave of early‑July free‑agent signings and a signed offer sheet that shook a franchise in Southern California, it’s been a little tricky to keep track of who’s coming, who’s going, and how each team’s depth chart is shaping up. So consider this a check‑in on where things stand to date: a snapshot of the roster changes across the division and how they shape the outlook for 2026‑27.
One quick note before we dive in. I’m not covering the Seattle Kraken here. Darren Brown already broke down the Kraken offseason in detail last week, and he covered all the important details and then some.
The player‑movement tables I’ve compiled are based strictly on end‑of‑season rosters and who is currently listed on each team’s NHL roster page from the media site. That means no projected rookies or expected call‑ups—so someone like Ivar Stenberg, who is almost certainly starting the season in San Jose, won’t appear in the Sharks’ table because he’s not officially listed yet.
For skaters, I included 2025‑26 games played, goals, and goals per game. For goalies, I listed games started, wins, and save percentage. As a reminder, teams generally ice a 20‑player roster: 12 forwards, 6 defensemen, and 2 goalies. They can also carry up to three extras for a 23-man roster. Over last season’s 82 games, that translates to roughly 984 forward man‑games, 410 defense man‑games, and 82 goalie starts. It’s a useful barometer for understanding how “full” a roster is at the moment, and how much space remains. And yes, next season jumps to 84 games, but I’m not normalizing the numbers for simplicity’s sake.
Anaheim Ducks
The Ducks were one of the best stories in the league last season, making the playoffs and knocking off Edmonton in Round 1. With a young core finally materializing, the future looked bright. Then came the offseason.
First, Anaheim traded Olen Zellweger to Buffalo. Then, in a move that surprised a good chunk of the hockey world, they shipped out Mason McTavish, once considered a franchise pillar, to the St. Louis Blues for two first‑round picks. Whether that was cap‑driven or a shift in organizational philosophy, it’s a significant subtraction.
Then came the offer sheet saga. Philadelphia signed Leo Carlsson to an $18 million offer sheet. Feeling vulnerable to another offer sheet, the Ducks were forced to sign restricted free agent, Pavel Mintyukov, to a five-year $36 million contract that carries a $7.2M AAV.
They of course matched the Carlsson offer sheet, but the ripple effects are significant: the Ducks now have only $9 million in cap space to sign their remaining RFAs, including Cutter Gauthier, who scored 41 goals last season and will command north of $10 million. Someone will need to be moved.
On defense, Anaheim let Jacob Trouba, John Carlson, and Radko Gudas walk. None of those departures are catastrophic individually, but combined with the Zellweger trade, the blue line suddenly looks thin, and this was already a team that allowed the fourth‑most goals in the league.
I still like their forward group, and Beckett Sennecke feels poised for another step forward, but losing McTavish’s production and facing a looming cap crunch is tough.
Verdict: A step back feels likely. Without meaningful defensive improvement, they could miss the playoffs entirely.
Calgary Flames
We don’t need to spend much time here. Calgary’s notable moves were acquiring Simon Nemec from New Jersey and trading Blake Coleman (20 goals) to Minnesota. They were bad last season and probably got worse this offseason, but that’s intentional. The Flames are still waiting for their prospect pool to ripen.
Verdict: A bottom‑of‑the‑Pacific battle with Vancouver seems inevitable.
Edmonton Oilers
As long as Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl are on the roster, Edmonton will always be a fringe contender at worst. That’s just the reality.
This summer, they finally addressed their biggest weakness: goaltending. The Oilers signed 36‑year‑old Frederik Andersen, whose consistency has been… let’s call it “variable.” They also acquired Devon Levi and Connor Ingram, giving them a three‑deep safety net.
If Andersen plays anywhere close to “Playoff Freddy,” or if Levi or Ingram can deliver league‑average goaltending, Edmonton could be the team to beat in the Pacific.
Verdict: Still dangerous. Still flawed. Still a playoff team.
LA Kings
I didn’t think the Kings were very good last season, and I still don’t understand how they made the playoffs. With a full season of Artemi Panarin and a healthy Kevin Fiala, you can squint and see marginal improvement, but I’m not buying it.
Their current roster age is 30.3 years—oldest in the Pacific, fourth‑oldest in the league. They made no significant offseason changes.
Verdict: Regression feels inevitable. I will be a bit surprised if they return to the playoffs.
San Jose Sharks
A lot of people hated the Sharks’ offseason, especially the acquisitions of Darnell Nurse and Jacob Trouba. But here’s the thing: San Jose was electric last season because they didn’t play defense. They needed veteran stability, and Nurse plus Trouba gives them some of that.
The forward group will continue to evolve. Michael Misa should take another step, and Ivar Stenberg, this year’s No. 2 pick, is expected to play a full NHL season.
Verdict: Better next season, and potentially much better. A playoff spot feels likely.
Vancouver Canucks
The worst team in the league last season made no meaningful roster changes. Vancouver is still in full teardown mode, stockpiling prospects and waiting for the next wave.
Off the ice, they’re rebooting the front office and coaching staff. On the ice, they’ll have Liam Ohgren and Zeev Buium via the Quinn Hughes trade, but neither is ready to move the needle.
Verdict: Still rebuilding. Still bottom‑tier.
Vegas Golden Knights
Vegas continues to Houdini their way through cap problems with ruthless roster management. They traded Pavel Dorofeyev (37 goals) and as of now, haven’t re‑signed Reilly Smith. Yes, they won the Pacific and reached the Stanley Cup Final, but they struggled through long stretches of last season.
I’m not writing them off (and never will again) but losing that much scoring is significant. Add in an aging core and recent injury history, the warning lights are blinking. But they’ve been blinking for years now.
Verdict: Still competitive, but the margin for error is shrinking.
Summary
At this point in the offseason, two Pacific Division teams feel meaningfully better: Edmonton and San Jose. The Oilers finally addressed their goaltending volatility with a trio of netminders, and the Sharks added the defensive stability they desperately needed while continuing to build out a young, dynamic forward core. Both clubs look like playoff teams on paper.
After that, things get murky. Anaheim’s cap crunch and blue‑line departures introduce real volatility. Vegas lost a pile of goals and hasn’t replaced them. LA is older, stagnant, and trending the wrong direction. Calgary and Vancouver are still in the “collect prospects, endure pain” phase of their rebuilds. Seattle is likely in the middle of this group somewhere.
So the race for the final one or two Pacific playoff spots is wide open. No team has clearly separated itself through its offseason moves, and several have taken small steps backward. That creates a division where injuries, chemistry, and who might step up may matter more than any remaining transaction.
The door is open for a surprise. The question is who might grab that opportunity?