Finally, some Kraken news has started trickling in again, now that August is in the rearview mirror. Joonas Donskoi announced his retirement, and Seattle signed Devin Shore to add depth and competition in training camp.
John and Darren break those stories down and more in their Kraken news portion of the show.
They then shift to Goalie Gear Corner, which is a fun Kraken-related one, some PWHL talk, and some general NHL news.
The show closes with Weekly One-Timers and Tweets of the Week.
On last week’s episode of the Sound Of Hockey Podcast, I forecasted that the biggest need for the Seattle Kraken early in the 2023-24 NHL season will be a right-handed center. This was not the first time I mentioned the need after the Kraken chose to not qualify the only right-handed center on the team from last year, Morgan Geekie. At the core of this need is the option to deploy a right-handed center to take strategic faceoffs from a right-hander’s strong side.
Before anybody goes right to the comments section to tell me faceoffs don’t matter, let me state that I do acknowledge that faceoffs are not as important as we once thought they were, and possession after a faceoff is a better measure of success. The possession stat is not captured and shared publicly, but we do know that faceoff wins and losses are a leading indicator of that possession, so we are going to work with the tools that are publicly available to us.
Seattle Kraken faceoff numbers last season
Let’s call out the obvious; the Kraken were one of the worst teams in the league for faceoffs last season. Early in the campaign, it was an easy stat to pick on, particularly when the team had challenges on the power play, as it seemed to have frequently. Teams were able to win the faceoff and clear the zone, killing valuable time even before Seattle could get set up. The dismal faceoff numbers also seemed to drive speculation from national media types that the Kraken would target a center at the trade deadline last season.
Faceoff deployments in the defensive zone
There is a strong side and a weak side for faceoffs. Right-shot centers tend to favor winning faceoffs on their backhand to the back right of the faceoff circle. Conversely, left-handers will try to win it to their back left.
The area on the ice in which this is particularly important is when the faceoff is in the defensive zone. If the faceoff is to the right of the goalie, ideally you have a right-hander take the draw, so they can try to win it to the corner, or, at the very least, keep it out of the center of the ice. If you have a left-hander taking a faceoff on the right side, there is a danger that the center could win or just direct it toward the center of the ice or toward the net.
See Exhibit A below.
Let’s see how centers were deployed in the defensive zone based on their handedness.
One item of note is that the total number of faceoffs taken by lefties is much higher. This is largely because roughly 66 percent of the centers in the league are left-handed, and as far as I know, there are no ambidextrous centers in the league, which would make the right-handers around 33 percent.
Because of this scarcity of righties in the league, the deployment of lefties based on the side of the ice is not as pronounced. But righties are deployed significantly more on the right side with 72.4 percent of their faceoffs taken in the defensive zone on the right side.
For lefties, you can see the advantage of the strong side, winning 53.6 percent of defensive-zone faceoffs, compared to just 45.0 percent on the weak side.
Kraken faceoff deployments in the defensive zone
Now let’s take a deeper look at how the Kraken leveraged their centers last season and how they fared at the defensive-zone faceoff dots.
As expected, Morgan Geekie, Seattle’s only right-handed center, was heavily deployed on the right shooter’s strong side in the defensive zone. At 47.1 percent, he had the highest win percentage on that specific faceoff circle.
Next let’s remove Geekie and add Pierre-Edouard Bellemare, the expected fourth-line center to start 2023-24.
On the surface, the faceoff percentage should go up, but it doesn’t account that 80 percent of Geekie’s faceoffs were taken on the right-hander’s strong side. Bellemare will not be deployed in the same way, and someone will need to take those faceoffs to the right of the goalie in the defensive zone.
Shortcomings of measuring faceoffs
There has been research to suggest that faceoff winning percentages do not have a significant impact on games, and most people I talk to in the hockey world imply there is a more important stat of gaining possession after a faceoff. The players on the ice all have a role to play in the faceoff and could impact who wins possession. Here are two of my favorite examples of these shortcomings.
This first example is when the Kraken “lose” the opening faceoff in overtime against the Capitals.
The second is when the Kraken “win” the faceoff in a playoff game against the Avalanche.
In both cases, the team that won the faceoff never really possessed the puck but still got credit for winning the faceoff.
Shots against after faceoffs
In a perfect world, we have a statistic that captures which team gains clear possession of the puck after a faceoff. This would be a team stat that considers all players on the ice and their ability to gain possession… but we don’t have that.
A proxy that is often used is shot attempts and shot attempts against after a faceoff within a designated time interval. I asked around about the interval, and the consensus I got back was five seconds. The logic here is if a team attempts a shot within a five-second interval of a draw, they will have successfully gained possession. Conversely, you can evaluate a team’s performance at gaining possession after a faceoff by seeing the rate at which they allow shot attempts after a faceoff.
For consistency in the analysis, we are going to focus on defensive-zone faceoffs. Let’s first look at the raw numbers of shot attempts against within five seconds of a defensive-zone faceoff.
When evaluating just on a volume basis, there does not seem to be an issue with the Kraken’s ability to gain possession after a defensive-zone faceoff. They are squarely in the middle of the league, ranking 16th in shot attempts allowed within five seconds of a defensive-zone faceoff.
Analyzing the performance on a volume basis is flawed, though, because a team, for whatever reason, might have a lower number of defensive-zone faceoffs, which might reduce the volume of shot attempts allowed. A better approach will be to look at the rate at which a team allows shot attempts after faceoffs.
This visual starts to tell a different story. The Kraken were ranked 26th in the league at the rate that they allowed shot attempts within five seconds of a defensive faceoff with only one playoff team below them, the Minnesota Wild.
We can slice it one more layer to hone in on the actual faceoff circle in question and see how the Kraken performed. To differentiate the two circles, we are going to label them from the goalie’s perspective, so the “Defensive-Right” is the circle to the immediate right of the goalie, while “Defensive-Left” is the circle to the immediate left of the goalie. To remind people, the Defensive-Right faceoff circle is a right-hander’s strong side, while the “Defensive-Left” is the left-hander’s strong side.
Consistent with the faceoff percentages, the Kraken struggled with relinquishing possession after faceoffs from the Defensive-Right circle; they ranked 28th in the league at the rate in which teams get shot attempts within five seconds of the faceoff.
No easy fix
As I stated in the beginning, the Kraken need a right-handed center to deploy on the right-side defensive-zone faceoff circle, but it is unlikely we will see any roster moves before the season starts. Of the right-handed centermen available during free agency, only J.T. Compher, Luke Glendening, and Noel Acciari would have been candidates that could have been targets that fit this profile. And who knows if the Kraken made a run at any of them?
It is also naïve to think there isn’t a host of other factors when targeting free agents, including contract terms and long-term fit within the organization. Also, it is important to point out that Shane Wright is a right-handed center, but it would be asking a lot of a rookie to be that stable right-handed option as he gets used to the speed and the strength of the game.
Is it October yet?
I hope some of you feel a little bit more enlightened on faceoffs, and I also want to recognize my own insanity that I put the time and research I put into evaluating defensive-zone faceoffs. It was fun, insightful, and interesting for me, but come on, a 1500-word post on defensive-zone faceoffs?
If you have thoughts, questions, or want to see some specific teams or players broken down, leave a note in the comments section and I will do my best to get back to you.
Before we get to the meat of this story, a bit of Kraken news, as Joonas Donskoi announced his retirement from professional hockey Sunday via his Instagram account. Donskoi, 31, cited multiple concussions in the post as the reason for his early departure from the game.
Joonas Donskoi has announced his retirement via his Instagram, citing multiple concussions.
Donskoi missed the whole 2022-23 season after getting hurt in preseason.
Selected from Colorado in the Expansion Draft, Donskoi had a tough inaugural season with the Kraken. Although he played 75 games, he scored just two goals and found himself scratched from the lineup on a few occasions. That came after four consecutive seasons of 14 goals or more, so it was a significant dropoff. He then got injured during a preseason game in the lead-up to the 2022-23 season and ended up missing the entire campaign.
Donskoi played seven NHL seasons in total; four with San Jose, two with Colorado, and one with Seattle. He had 80 career goals and added 128 assists in 474 games. He played in a Stanley Cup Final for the Sharks in 2016 and also won a Presidents’ Trophy with the Avalanche in 2021.
Most important, though, Donskoi is one of the nicest people you can encounter. We will very much miss his infectious smile, and we are still grateful for that time he rescued the press corps from a large spider that was crawling across the floor of the Kraken dressing room.
We wish Joonas and his family all the best as they move into the next chapter of their lives.
Training camp is coming
Shifting gears now, the hockey news abyss that is the month of August is almost over, and that means Seattle Kraken training camp is once again right around the corner. The offseason played out in a relatively quiet manner for the Seattle front office, and a lack of big splashes left several questions open as we head toward the third season in franchise history.
We ask those questions here and also try to answer them.
Question 1: Which forwards make the team out of camp?
The moves the Kraken made this offseason were mostly backfilling transactions to cover for players that departed via free agency, namely the team’s entire fourth line and its third-pair left defenseman.
Out went Daniel Sprong, Morgan Geekie, Ryan Donato, and Carson Soucy, and in came Kailer Yamamoto, Pierre-Edouard Bellemare, and Brian Dumoulin. Yes, we’re naming more departures from the NHL roster than arrivals to the NHL roster, so there are lingering arguments to be had about who should snag the last couple spots when camp breaks.
Still, with Andre Burakovsky likely to return from a groin tear suffered in February, the forward lineup is mostly full.
Jared McCann // Matty Beniers // Jordan Eberle Andre Burakovsky // Alex Wennberg // Jaden Schwartz Oliver Bjorkstrand // Yanni Gourde // Eeli Tolvanen Brandon Tanev // Pierre-Edouard Bellemare // Kailer Yamamoto
Fighting for spots: Tye Kartye // Kole Lind // Shane Wright // John Hayden
Beyond the 12 forwards listed on lines above, Kartye, Lind, Wright, and Hayden will all be battling to make the Kraken. But if there aren’t injuries, we’re not sure where coach Dave Hakstol will be able to slot those players to get them consistent playing time; one would have to supplant a more veteran forward (could Bellemare, 38, spend time as a scratch this season?).
One would think Kartye has an inside track to the NHL roster after demonstrating during the playoffs that he can play in the Kraken’s top six. The AHL rookie of the year looked like a grizzled veteran in the Stanley Cup Playoffs and notched three goals and two assists in 10 games for Seattle. He then went back to Coachella Valley and picked up right where he left off, adding eight more points in 18 Calder Cup Playoff games. All of that points toward Kartye breaking camp with the big club.
BUT…
There’s a wrinkle here. Remember, Kartye does not require waivers to get to Coachella Valley, whereas Lind does require them. We thought Lind was right on the cusp of making the team last season, only to be sent to the Firebirds, where he too was one of the team’s stars and posted 30 goals and 32 assists in 72 regular-season games, then a whopping 31 points in 26 playoff games.
If Kartye ends up being the guy Seattle wants to keep in the NHL, that could mean the organization would again have to risk losing Lind by placing him on waivers.
These things tend to work themselves out, but it’s worth keeping an eye on how the forward lineup evolves through Seattle’s preseason.
Question 2: Where does Shane Wright play this season?
By the letter of the law, Wright is still technically ineligible to play in the AHL this season because of the rules of the CHL/NHL transfer agreement. Had he played just one more game in the OHL before his Windsor Spitfires were swept out of the playoffs, this would no longer be a topic of conversation, and the Coachella Valley Firebirds would be a viable option.
We know discussions have been happening behind the scenes to determine if the involved leagues will make an exception and allow Wright to play for the Firebirds. We expect he will be cleared to play in the AHL, but nothing has been stated officially on that yet.
Questions remain around Shane Wright’s AHL eligibility this season. (Photo/Brian Liesse)
HOWEVER…
If it doesn’t work out in Seattle’s favor, and NHL or OHL end up being the only options, it will be interesting to see what kind of progress Wright has made this offseason. At the end of his playoff run with the Firebirds, he had started to show readiness for pro hockey and looked great in development camp. But is he ready for the NHL?
Going back to the OHL would be a waste of time for Wright, so if it ends up being NHL or juniors, we think he would stay with the NHL team and again be used sparingly.
That said, we still think the AHL is the best place for Wright at this point, and we think he will be allowed to play there.
Question 3: What happens with Ryker Evans this season?
On the back end, the decision by general manager Ron Francis to bring in Dumoulin on a two-year, $6.3 million deal effectively solidified that Ryker Evans will start the season in the AHL, unless there’s an injury to a left-shot defenseman.
21-year-old defenseman Ryker Evans could factor in on the Kraken blue line in the near future. (Photo/Brian Liesse)
The puck-moving 21-year-old is surely closing in on a spot with the NHL club, though, after he put up 44 points in 71 games for Coachella Valley in the regular season, then 26 in 26 playoff games. Evans is silky smooth and brings an offensive element from the blue line that Seattle lacks.
Meanwhile, with righties Adam Larsson, Justin Schultz, and Will Borgen all back, it does seem like Cale Fleury is destined for the seventh-defenseman role again, doesn’t it?
Question 4: Who will be the backup goalie?
The last two seasons have been turbulent for Chris Driedger, who originally signed his three-year, $10.5 million contract in 2021 expecting to be the starting goalie for the Kraken. Instead, Seattle also signed Philipp Grubauer before the inaugural season, putting Driedger into a true backup spot.
Driedger tore his ACL while representing Canada at the IIHF World Championship after the 2021-22 season ended, then spent the majority of 2022-23 rehabbing. When he came back, Martin Jones (now under contract with the Toronto Maple Leafs) had taken his backup spot, so Driedger was assigned to Coachella Valley.
Back fully healthy, Driedger also struggled to find playing time in the AHL, as Joey Daccord demanded the goal crease down the stretch and carried the Firebirds all the way to the Calder Cup Finals.
Was Daccord’s memorable performance—he had a 2.31 goals against average and .927 save percentage in 16 playoff games for the Firebirds—enough to earn him his first full-time NHL backup role?
Seattle showed loyalty to Daccord, a Group 6 unrestricted free agent, by signing him to a two-year, one-way contract worth $2.4 million this offseason. The front office clearly likes where he’s headed, so it could be Joey’s time.
Question 5: Did the Kraken improve this offseason?
If you’ve been listening to the Sound Of Hockey Podcastthis summer, you’ll know that somebody (not naming names) on that show thinks Seattle regressed this offseason by not adding a high-end scorer to the top of the lineup.
But now that we’ve done the exercise of writing out the depth chart above, that unnamed podcast host (ok, it was me, I admit it!) is starting to come around to the idea that maybe the Kraken will be about as good as they were last season.
Seattle’s success in 2023-24 will hinge on health. With Burakovsky theoretically returning, the Kraken do look deep again, at least on paper. We’re also seeing young players not named Matty Beniers knocking on the door for the first time, which is encouraging for the longer-term outlook of the franchise. And if a guy like Kartye or Lind can snag a spot higher in the lineup, that could be what pushes a more skilled player down, again giving Seattle four scary lines.
The team proved that its top three lines can roll against any lineup in the league, and all those players are back. So, really, the only concern is whether the fourth line—likely composed of some combination of under-the-radar acquisitions and youngsters—can produce in a similar manner to last season’s bottom trio. Again, assuming good health, there’s some potential for improvement there.
What other questions do you have about the Kraken as they head toward camp? Let us know in the comments section.
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.
The doldrums of summer are very much upon us, as very little has happened in the hockey world over the past couple weeks, especially for the Seattle Kraken.
BUT, John and Darren are joined by Curtis once again, and together, the trio manage to stitch together a pretty great show.
On this one, the guys break down “Kraken adjacent” news regarding players that were rumored to be fits for Seattle but moved elsewhere. They also do a Kraken roundtable that sparks some interesting discussion.
From July 29 through Aug. 4, some of the best under-20 players from the United States, Finland, and Sweden met at the home of the U.S. National Team Development Program in Plymouth, Mich. Each team has the same goal: Winning the 2024 World Junior Championship starting in December. This summer exhibition–dubbed the World Junior Summer Showcase–is all about evaluation. Which players should be on the World Juniors rosters?
Four players drafted by the Seattle Kraken saw playing time at the event: Finns Jani Nyman (No. 49 overall in the 2022 draft), Niklas Kokko (No. 58/2022), and Visa Vedenpaa (No. 168/2023), and Swede Zeb Forsfjall (No. 180/2023). I was able to watch all of Team Finland’s games and two of Team Sweden’s games. How did the players look? Are they likely to make the World Juniors rosters for their respective nations?
Since it’s a slow month on the hockey calendar, and this is a good excuse to check in on a few prospects, let’s dive in with Kraken-related takeaways and videos from the World Junior Summer Showcase.
Jani Nyman, LW, Finland
Showcase statistics. Nyman had two goals, zero assists, and three minor penalties (roughing x2, tripping) in four games played.
Tape analysis. Nyman played the left wing in a top-six role for the entire tournament. He did not play on the penalty kill, but he was a fixture on the first power-play unit. He served as one of the two trailing forwards on the man advantage–one of the players who attempts a controlled-carry zone entry to set up the unit in the offensive zone. (The Kraken used Andre Burakovsky, Jordan Eberle, and Alex Wennberg, among others, in a similar role in 2022-23.) Once established in the zone, he was most commonly on the right side half wall, looking to unleash one-timers from the right-wing circle. He scored on one such opportunity.
He looks like he has “it” when it comes to this kind of shot. By no means do I mean to suggest he’s going to score like Alex Ovechkin or David Pastrnak on the man advantage, but could he get close to Daniel Sprong’s production with his shot someday? Some players drill this shot constantly and never quite find it consistently enough. Nyman doesn’t have this problem. If given the opportunity in the NHL, I’d project him to rack up five-plus goals each season on that shot alone.
The rest of Nyman’s game is an incredibly challenging evaluation, I think. He has a number of strong discrete skills. He can shoot and pass at an NHL level. He can use his body to protect the puck and his strength to win board battles. He uses a physical style to drive play toward the opponent’s net regularly. And he plays with some edge, frequently entering the fray to stand up for a teammate.
But I also saw a player who struggled to stitch together his skills into cohesive, high-end play. He is a slower, hunched skater. He struggled to get the puck through the neutral zone with control at five-on-five because he can’t get much separation from the defense. He won’t win many chase situations and, worse, he often seemed to give up on plays where a foot race became necessary. On the defensive end, his feet deadened too often, and he was left to reach on a poke check. This led to a preventable tripping penalty in one game. Off the puck, he offered very little engagement defensively.
So, I oscillated between thinking “this is one of the most exciting prospects Seattle has” and doubts that he just won’t be able to succeed at a higher level where skilled players can exploit his flaws. I also started wondering whether there is some kind of sheltered bottom-line-and-power-play role that could get his shot onto NHL ice even if the other aspects of his game don’t progress, but I was left a bit pessimistic about that concept.
All of that said, Nyman is still young. He just turned 19 on July 30. He has plenty more development yet to come. And the “highs” are quite high for Nyman already. Indeed, good friend of the Sound of Hockey Podcast, Chris Peters, had Nyman as a player that stood out positively at the Showcase. I’ll be watching Nyman’s season closely.
World Juniors verdict. Nyman will be a top-six (likely top-line) left wing for Finland at the World Junior Championships.
Zeb Forsfjall, C, Sweden
Showcase statistics. Forsfjall had one goal, zero assists, and one minor penalty (cross-checking) in four games played.
Tape analysis. Team Sweden used Forsfjall as its bottom-line pivot and on the penalty kill. Through the two games I watched, I found it very easy to love this player. Forsfjall has easy, joystick-style mobility on the ice. He can get to anywhere the play dictates. His straight-line speed is also very good, even if a step down from elite. Finally, he displays strong puck-possession skill through the neutral zone.
Beyond that, his skills aren’t “loud,” but he gets results. He deploys a high-energy and engaged play style, particularly in the defensive zone. He has good instincts on the penalty kill and uses his speed to pressure opponents at the correct times.
As an undersized center, Forsfjall has a bit of Yanni Gourde in his game. But he’ll need to add some bulk if he’s going to play a hard-charging, forechecking style like No. 37 in deep sea blue. Forsjfall was willing but not always effective at winning puck battles at the World Junior Summer Showcase.
On the offensive side, Forsfjall showed enough passing and shooting skill to score opportunistically.
The question on Forsfjall is two-fold: Can he add strength, and can he continue to develop his offensive game? With modest gains in each area, it’s not difficult to imagine him finding a job as an NHL role player down the line. If this is the outcome, it’s outstanding value from a sixth-round draft pick.
World Juniors verdict. I highly doubt Forsfjall will be on Team Sweden this year, but if he can get a little stronger over the next year, I could imagine him securing a bottom-line, energy role for Sweden in 2025. You can’t say that about too many players drafted 180th overall in the NHL Draft.
Niklas Kokko, G, Finland
Showcase statistics. Kokko allowed 8 goals on 87 shots on goal, for a .908 save percentage. He won two games and dropped one.
Tape analysis. Kokko played three of the four games in this exhibition tune-up and looked calm and collected doing it. He used his big frame well, anticipated plays, and flashed a quick glove to deny a couple clean breakaway looks.
From my vantage, he looked like Finland’s second-best player across these four games. Cam Robinson of Elite Prospects was similarly complimentary of Kokko’s performance. As of this check in, Kokko’s development seems to be “on track” for an aggressive move to the AHL in the 2024-25 season as a 20-year-old.
World Juniors verdict. Kokko appears firmly entrenched as the projected starter for Team Finland at the 2024 World Juniors. Performance this fall will be a factor, but absent a collapse from Kokko, the job should be his, with Topias Leinonen his backup.
Visa Vedenpaa, G, Finland
Showcase statistics. Vedenpaa allowed 4 goals on 24 shots on goal, for a .833 save percentage. He was the losing goalie in his only start.
Tape analysis. Vedenpaa faced a number of tough looks in his one start, but he held up his end of the bargain for the most part. He’s trained in the same style as Kokko, but noticeably a bit smaller in the net. Vedenpaa found himself out of position at times, but he was often able to save himself with skilled and athletic plays.
World Juniors verdict. Vedenpaa won’t be in net for Finland this year, but his presence with the national team suggests he is in the running for the job in 2025. If he is one of the team’s final cuts or accompanies the team as an extra player who never suits up at this year’s World Junior Championship–as Kokko did last year–it will be a strong endorsement of his future outlook.
Other takeaways from the Showcase
Admittedly, I was watching Team Finland closer than the other squads, but the only player that I thought beat out Kokko in this exhibition was Finnish forward Lenni Hämeenaho.
New Jersey picked the native of Kajaani, Finland, at No. 58 in the 2023 NHL Draft–just after Seattle’s run of three second-round picks. Hämeenaho had played his entire draft season in Finland’s top professional league, Liiga, and performed incredibly well for his age, tallying 25 points in 59 total games. In my adjusted “NHL equivalency” calculation, his data netted out in the late-first-round range. Combined with scouting reports endorsing him as a second-round option (he ranked No. 56 on the Big Board), I thought a number of factors lined up to make him a strong option for Seattle with one of their second-round picks. Seattle didn’t go that way.
At the World Junior Summer Showcase, Hämeenaho showed off a diverse skillset as a top-six winger. He can skate, pass, shoot, possess the puck, forecheck, and backcheck, all from a frame that appears almost NHL-ready. He was often the best player on the ice, even though he was surrounded by players drafted higher. The knock on him before the draft was that he may have a low ceiling. And that may be. None of his skills looked “elite” to me. He’s probably a middle-six winger in the best case. But at this exhibition he was able to link up a number of strong skills and deliver a very impressive performance. He’ll be a player I watch and wonder about from a Kraken perspective.
Beyond Hämeenaho, two players that stood out to me were the 2024 draft-eligible Finnish center Konsta Helenius and the 2025 (!) draft-eligible U.S. center James Hagens.
Helenius is a bit undersized and struggled on the faceoff dot at times, but he brought an impressive defensive game and showed signs of offense too despite playing against players a year or more older than him. He was one of Finland’s better players up front and could be a top-15 pick next summer.
Hagens, who is just 16 years old, did not look out of place despite playing two-plus years up. He played a lower-leverage role, but showed flashes of pretty much every trait you could want in a player. If the 2025 NHL Draft is destined to be the “Michael Misa” year, Hagens could be in the conversation with any player after that.
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.
Yes, the 2023 NHL Draft was just over a month ago. But a love of the draft knows no offseason. So, here we are, in August 2023, before the 2023-24 hockey season has even started, with a post about the 2024 NHL Draft.
Specifically, we are here to present a preseason data-only ranking of (1) the top 100 first-time-eligible prospects and (2) the top 100 re-draft prospects for the 2024 NHL Draft.
Important note on using the data-only ranking: If you want to filter the data by various categories, highlight row 2, then select “Data,” “Filter Views,” and “Create New Temporary Filter View.” This will allow you to manipulate the data in a way visible only to you.
Building the 2024 NHL Draft preseason data-only ranking
In the lead up to this year’s draft, I produced a data-only list of top prospects to monitor. After reflecting on that project, I arrived at the conclusion that the list might be more useful early in the season as a reference point for monitoring players. In some sense, this is how teams use data. It’s most useful to identify players and aid further research and scouting. The same is true on the public side. Who should we be monitoring as we launch into the 2023-24 season? The data can help provide an answer to that question at least.
As I did in advance of the 2023 draft, I built this ranking using an NHL equivalency (or “NHLe”) calculation, but I made three minor adjustments to my approach this time around. First, for my equivalency calculation, I transitioned to using Thibaud Chatel’s NHLe since it is the most up-to-date work in the public sphere.
Second, I have stopped ranking goaltenders for now. I want to improve my method for converting goalie data into a ranking. Hopefully, I can do that before the 2024 draft.
Third, I introduced one new adjustment, boosting the equivalency of a small handful of low-scoring, pro-level skaters. Chace McCallum recently dug in on this issue and found some data suggests that low-scoring draft-eligible players are underrated by conventional NHLe calculations. This is intuitive because one could imagine a scenario where a strong junior player is elevated to a pro league but gets short ice time in a depth role and gets very little opportunity to score.
Kraken prospect Zeb Forsfjall is an example from the 2023 draft. He earned his way to the SHL but played limited minutes in a defensive fourth-line role and tallied only one goal in 18 games. If he had remained in the junior ranks, his equivalency likely would have been stronger. So, the adjustment removes the NHLe “penalty” associated with a coaching decision to move a player up who might not be ready for a scoring role at a higher level.
Aron Kiviharju is the primary example so far in the 2024 draft. Impressively, he played 21 games for TPS in Liiga in his draft-minus-one season. But, as one might expect, he didn’t register many points (zero goals and three assists). Still, Kiviharju should be credited, not penalized, for achieving a promotion to this top-level professional league at such a young age.
This new adjustment is modest and applies to only a few players, but it is an important step to address a potential flaw in my earlier approach, which likely caused my adjusted NHLe ranking to undervalue players like Forsfjall or Dimitry Simashev.
Beyond those changes, I proceeded in similar fashion to my 2023 data-only ranking. I made modest adjustments to a player’s NHLe calculation for (1) re-draft status, (2) age, and (3) height, each of which have been shown to be linked to prospect success rates. On average, a six-foot-two winger who scores at the same rate as a five-foot-seven winger in junior hockey is more likely to contribute at the NHL level. Likewise, a player who scores a point per game as an 18-year-old is more likely to become an NHL regular than a player who reaches that threshold for the first time as a 21-year-old.
Finally, as before, I then made a modest adjustment to bump up the ranking of defensemen relative to forwards, since, arguably, a high-scoring blueliner is more valuable than a similarly high-scoring forward.
An important season is in front of these players
The most important distinction between this preseason 2024 draft project and my final 2023 draft ranking from a couple months ago is that I am building this preseason ranking on each player’s production one year out from the draft. For first-time draft-eligible players, this is often called the player’s “draft-minus-one” season.
All of these players have another full season ahead to change their draft stock. First-time draft eligibles often break out as noteworthy draft prospects only during this upcoming “draft” season. By contrast, some players that look like high first-round picks in their draft-minus-one year can recede into a middle-round consideration with a mediocre draft season. Cameron Allen is an example of this phenomenon from the 2023 draft.
Either way, this data is not the end of the story for these prospects. I plan to check in with a new data-only ranking midway through the 2023-24 season and then provide the final data-only list before the 2024 draft.
Without further preamble, again, here is the link to the rankings. I split the lists because very few first-time draft eligibles measure up to the production of the re-draft candidates in their draft-minus-one seasons, even after the adjustments. First-time eligibles need to make a big a jump in their draft season, so it’s best to consider them separately here.
Top 100 first-time draft-eligible skaters
Rank
Name
Position
Height (ft. in.)
Weight (lbs)
Team
League
GP
G
A
1
Macklin Celebrini
F
5’11”
181
Chicago Steel
USHL
52
46
40
2
Cole Eiserman
LW
5’11”
192
Multiple Teams
NTDP
62
69
35
3
Ivan Demidov
RW/C
5’11”
168
Multiple Teams
MHL
54
24
53
4
Cole Hutson
D
5’8″
143
Multiple Teams
NTDP
61
10
58
5
Zayne Parekh
D
6’0″
170
Saginaw Spirit
OHL
61
27
19
6
Tanner Howe
F
5’10”
181
Regina Pats
WHL
74
38
51
7
Konsta Helenius
C/RW
5’10”
168
Tappara U20
U20 SM-sarja
19
8
20
8
Beckett Sennecke
RW
6’2″
181
Oshawa Generals
OHL
66
21
35
9
Anthony Cristoforo
D
5’11”
174
Windsor Spitfires
OHL
67
7
36
10
Igor Chernyshov
LW
6’2″
192
MHK Dynamo Moskva
MHL
38
18
20
11
Mac Swanson
F
5’7″
165
Fargo Force
USHL
66
15
50
12
Ryder Ritchie
F
6’0″
174
Prince Albert Raiders
WHL
61
20
35
13
Trevor Connelly
F
6’1″
161
Tri-City Storm
USHL
60
26
25
14
Artyom Levshunov
D
6’2″
198
Green Bay Gamblers
USHL
65
13
30
15
Liam Greentree
RW
6’2″
194
Windsor Spitfires
OHL
65
25
21
16
Carter Yakemchuk
D
6’2″
194
Calgary Hitmen
WHL
72
19
31
17
Justin Poirier
RW
5’8″
181
Baie-Comeau Drakkar
QMJHL
62
32
25
18
Maxim Massé
RW
6’1″
181
Chicoutimi Saguenéens
QMJHL
70
29
34
19
Henry Mews
D
6’0″
185
Ottawa 67’s
OHL
66
13
22
20
Berkly Catton
F
5’11”
163
Spokane Chiefs
WHL
63
23
32
21
Andrew Basha
F
5’11”
174
Medicine Hat Tigers
WHL
71
23
37
22
Simon Zether
C
6’3″
187
Rögle BK J20
J20 Nationell
43
14
32
23
Michael Brandsegg-Nygård
RW
6’1″
194
Mora IK J20
J20 Nationell
35
17
21
24
Matvei Babenko
RW
6’3″
201
Tolpar Ufa
MHL
50
26
14
25
Riley Patterson
C
6’0″
176
North York Rangers
OJHL
56
31
45
26
Topias Hynninen
RW
5’10”
165
Jukurit U20
U20 SM-sarja
39
12
26
27
Will Felicio
D
5’10”
161
Madison Capitols
USHL
55
4
24
28
Zeev Buium
D
5’11”
165
U.S. National U18 Team
NTDP
63
5
35
29
Cayden Lindstrom
F
6’5″
190
Medicine Hat Tigers
WHL
65
19
24
30
Yegor Surin
C/RW
5’10”
174
Multiple Teams
MHL
58
16
23
31
Aron Kiviharju
D
5’10”
165
TPS
Liiga
21
0
3
32
Nikita Artamonov
RW
5’11”
187
Multiple Teams
MHL
63
14
28
33
Oleg Trofimchuk
F
6’1″
165
Mamonty Yugry
MHL
50
15
17
34
Alexander Shen
C/RW
5’11”
192
Mamonty Yugry
MHL
46
13
15
35
Alexandre Blais
LW
5’10”
154
Rimouski Océanic
QMJHL
73
9
39
36
Alexander Kim
F
5’11”
161
Ässät U18
U18 SM-sarja
41
31
39
37
Alexander Zetterberg
C
5’8″
159
Örebro HK J20
J20 Nationell
45
11
23
38
Adam Jiricek
D
6’1″
152
HC Plzeň U20
Czechia U20
42
12
17
39
Yegor Graf
C
5’11”
161
Multiple Teams
MHL
53
10
18
40
Akseli Pulkkanen
F
5’9″
159
KalPa U18
U18 SM-sarja
22
15
18
41
Eriks Mateiko
LW
6’4″
201
Saint John Sea Dogs
QMJHL
67
17
20
42
Maxim Velikov
F
6’1″
198
Krasnaya Armiya Moskva
MHL
36
9
10
43
Adam Titlbach
C
5’8″
150
HC Plzeň U20
Czechia U20
35
11
20
44
Jan Kucera
C
6’2″
181
HC Olomouc U20
Czechia U20
50
14
28
45
Mark Slivchenko
F
5’9″
161
Multiple Teams
MHL
46
13
9
46
Carson Wetsch
F
6’2″
185
Calgary Hitmen
WHL
50
11
11
47
Onni Kontunen
D
5’10”
163
SaiPa/Ketterä U18
U18 SM-sarja
39
13
28
48
Jamiro Reber
C
5’10”
172
Langnau U20
U20 Elit
53
11
39
49
Tim Ekman
F
–
–
Sport U18
U18 SM-sarja
37
18
29
50
Adam Jecho
RW
6’3″
187
Tappara U18
U18 SM-sarja
39
21
26
51
Pavel Burmistrov
LW/RW
5’11”
161
Multiple Teams
MHL
26
7
4
52
Rasmus Svartström
F
6’4″
201
KooKoo U18
U18 SM-sarja
42
23
28
53
Natan Teshome
RW
5’11”
152
Jokerit U18
U18 SM-sarja
40
19
29
54
Artyom Krikunenko
C
5’9″
174
Loko-76 Yaroslavl
MHL
41
8
10
55
Tomas Mrsic
C
5’10”
154
Medicine Hat Tigers
WHL
62
9
17
56
Leonid Kolodiy
LW/RW
6’0″
159
Belye Medvedi Chelyabinsk
MHL
30
3
9
57
Artyom Shchuchinov
D
5’11”
154
Belye Medvedi Chelyabinsk
MHL
41
3
10
58
Eemeli Heinilä
D
6’1″
187
Ässät U18
U18 SM-sarja
42
11
25
59
Lukas Kral
LW
5’11”
163
Mountfield HK U20
Czechia U20
45
13
17
60
Alexander Bazhukhin
W/C
6’1″
172
Ladia Togliatti
MHL
49
10
9
61
Tij Iginla
F
6’0″
181
Seattle Thunderbirds
WHL
51
6
13
62
Alexander Plesovskikh
F
6’0″
172
Mamonty Yugry
MHL
41
7
8
63
Ivan Kornilov
D
5’10”
172
Multiple Teams
MHL
56
1
15
64
Roman Luttsev
C
5’11”
154
Multiple Teams
MHL
60
9
14
65
Ilya Ivanov
F
5’11”
165
Team Belarus U18
Belarus Vysshaya
60
35
45
66
Louie Wehmann
F
6’1″
201
Providence Academy
USHS-MN
26
44
37
67
Radek Tomas
F
5’10”
170
HC Dynamo Pardubice U20
Czechia U20
54
17
19
68
Danila Bulatov
F
5’9″
157
AKM-Junior Tula Region
MHL
45
8
10
69
Danila Sysoyev
F
5’10”
174
Omskie Yastreby
MHL
43
8
8
70
Marat Kalimullin
D
6’2″
161
Ladia Togliatti
MHL
50
5
9
71
Vojtech Hradec
F
6’3″
185
BK Mladá Boleslav U20
Czechia U20
53
13
20
72
David Timofejev
F
5’9″
148
Kiekko-Vantaa U18
U18 SM-sarja
38
20
17
73
Carson Pilgrim
F
5’11”
165
Warroad High
USHS-MN
31
52
40
74
Noah Urness
F
5’10”
168
Roseau High
USHS-MN
28
45
41
75
Juuso Lehtimäki
F
–
–
TUTO Hockey U18
U18 SM-sarja
29
14
14
76
Artur Faizov
F
6’1″
183
Mamonty Yugry
MHL
38
10
3
77
Leo Tuuva
F
5’11”
150
Lukko U18
U18 SM-sarja
40
16
21
78
Alexandre Guy
RW
6’2″
201
Val-d’Or Foreurs
QMJHL
66
17
7
79
Mark Corbett
C
6’2″
185
Roncalli Cardinals
Canadian High School Hockey
20
31
27
80
Bulat Akhsyanov
F
5’8″
154
Tolpar Ufa
MHL
42
5
10
81
Santeri Kuusisto
D
–
–
Sport U18
U18 SM-sarja
41
9
20
82
Sevastian Kapchuk
F
5’9″
150
Multiple Teams
MHL
43
5
9
83
Stian Solberg
D
6’2″
190
Vålerenga
Eliteserien
18
1
3
84
Veeti Räsänen
F
–
–
Multiple Teams
U18 SM-sarja
40
15
16
85
Arseni Marchenko
D
6’6″
207
Team Belarus U17
Belarus Vysshaya
54
10
28
86
Lukas Fischer
D
6’4″
181
Sarnia Sting
OHL
63
3
8
87
Ollie Josephson
F
5’11”
176
Red Deer Rebels
WHL
75
7
15
88
Jonatan Tiilikainen
F
–
–
JYP U18
U18 SM-sarja
41
14
18
89
Pavol Prokopovic
F
6’1″
205
HK Michalovce U20
Slovakia U20
24
9
10
90
Thomas Konkowski
F
5’7″
141
Sachem High
USHS-NY
15
24
16
91
Artyom Gumenyuk
LW
6’2″
187
Amurskie Tigry Khabarovsk
MHL
50
10
5
92
Ondrej Maruna
C
6’4″
198
Team Slovakia U18
1.liga (Slovakia)
24
6
4
93
Vojtech Spevacek
RW
5’9″
159
HC Oceláři Třinec U20
Czechia U20
59
13
18
94
Matias Piirainen
F
–
–
Multiple Teams
U18 SM-sarja
34
15
11
95
Nikita Afanasyev
D
6’1″
185
Kapitan Stupino
MHL
59
3
10
96
Emil Eriksson
F
–
–
Kiekko-Espoo U18 Ch
U18 SM-sarja
44
19
13
97
Andrei Krutov
LW/RW
5’11”
174
Chaika Nizhny Novgorod
MHL
51
8
6
98
Kamden Kaiser
F
6’1″
190
Northfield High
USHS-MN
30
40
26
99
Yevgeni Avramenko
F
5’11”
152
Progress Grodno
Belarus Vysshaya
55
28
23
100
Aatu Karvinen
F
5’9″
154
Jokerit U18
U18 SM-sarja
38
12
17
Top 100 re-draft skaters
Rank
Name
Position
Height (ft. in.)
Weight (lbs)
Team
League
GP
G
A
1
German Tochilkin
F
6’3″
179
Khimik Voskresensk
VHL
21
3
14
2
Oskar Asplund
D
5’11”
172
Almtuna IS
Allsvenskan
51
7
24
3
Dmitri Utkin
C
6’0″
181
HK Sochi
KHL
19
3
3
4
Yegor Klimovich
F
5’9″
159
Sibirskie Snaipery Novosibirsk
MHL
41
20
32
5
Grigori Kuzmin
LW
5’10”
187
SKA-Neva St. Petersburg
VHL
22
5
12
6
Valtteri Viirret
D
5’8″
181
Ässät
Liiga
39
2
14
7
Elmeri Laakso
D
6’1″
185
SaiPa
Liiga
32
4
7
8
Ivan Klimovich
C
6’2″
174
Sibirskie Snaipery Novosibirsk
MHL
40
25
30
9
Raul Yakupov
F
6’1″
183
Reaktor Nizhnekamsk
MHL
49
32
29
10
Antti Virtanen
C/W
5’11”
181
SaiPa U20
U20 SM-sarja
35
25
29
11
Tigran Yarulin
F
6’2″
203
HK Sochi
KHL
28
3
6
12
Daniil O. Ivanov
D
6’5″
209
Khimik Voskresensk
VHL
56
13
11
13
Kirill Vasilyev
D
5’10”
163
Ryazan-VDV
VHL
17
1
7
14
Hannes Hellberg
F
6’1″
190
Leksands IF J20
J20 Nationell
49
38
30
15
Theo Keilin
C/LW
5’11”
181
Skellefteå AIK J20
J20 Nationell
31
12
38
16
Daniil Sotishvili
F
5’11”
170
Dinamo-Shinnik Bobruysk
MHL
52
24
41
17
Yegor Vinogradov
C/RW
6’2″
181
Torpedo Nizhny Novgorod
KHL
63
7
12
18
Dylan Hryckowian
RW
5’10”
170
Cedar Rapids RoughRiders
USHL
66
26
43
19
Helmer Styf
C
5’11”
176
MoDo Hockey J20
J20 Nationell
39
29
25
20
Radel Zamaltdinov
F
5’10”
168
Irbis Kazan
MHL
15
8
6
21
Ethan Whitcomb
RW
6’4″
201
Muskegon Lumberjacks
USHL
53
24
26
22
Artyom Kashtanov
F
6’6″
190
Avto Yekaterinburg
MHL
49
16
28
23
Ben Robertson
D
5’10”
183
Waterloo Black Hawks
USHL
64
4
42
24
William Proos
LW
6’3″
192
Almtuna IS J20
J20 Nationell
20
13
15
25
Karl Umegård
F
5’9″
170
MoDo Hockey J20
J20 Nationell
46
33
36
26
Ivan Anoshko
C
5’10”
168
Dinamo-Shinnik Bobruysk
MHL
55
21
33
27
Andon Cerbone
F
5’9″
163
Multiple Teams
USHL
73
29
43
28
Magomed Sharakanov
D
6’1″
201
MHK Dynamo Moskva
MHL
50
8
28
29
Yegor Smirnov
C
5’10”
163
Almaz Cherepovets
MHL
48
23
21
30
Lucas Lagerberg Hoen
D
6’1″
181
Leksands IF J20
J20 Nationell
52
13
38
31
Alexander Morozov
F
5’10”
168
Sakhalinskiye Akuly
MHL
53
35
21
32
Nikita Blednov
F
5’10”
165
Avto Yekaterinburg
MHL
46
15
34
33
Simone Terraneo
D
5’11”
190
HCB Ticino Rockets
Swiss League
35
3
18
34
Jake Livanavage
D
5’10”
174
Chicago Steel
USHL
54
6
33
35
Victor Sjöholm
D
5’9″
179
HV71
SHL
37
2
8
36
Daniil Davydov
C/LW
5’11”
176
MHK Dynamo St. Petersburg
MHL
54
13
40
37
Vyacheslav Malov
RW
5’8″
176
Omskie Yastreby
MHL
65
23
40
38
Ville Ruotsalainen
D
5’9″
165
KalPa U20
U20 SM-sarja
26
7
21
39
Alexei Yegorov
D
6’3″
181
Spartak Moskva
KHL
17
1
2
40
Yaroslav Tsulygin
D
6’0″
157
Toros Neftekamsk
VHL
21
2
5
41
Vasili Dronyk
F
6’5″
209
Krasnaya Armiya Moskva
MHL
36
18
18
42
Artyom Misnikov
LW
5’10”
157
Chaika Nizhny Novgorod
MHL
49
16
39
43
Alexander Lazarev
F
6’0″
181
Tyumenski Legion
MHL
47
24
23
44
Joonatan Lempiäinen
W
5’10”
172
SaiPa U20
U20 SM-sarja
31
14
23
45
Aaron Hakala
RW/C
5’11”
176
TPS U20
U20 SM-sarja
37
13
31
46
Robert Chernov
F
6’4″
198
Reaktor Nizhnekamsk
MHL
45
19
27
47
Yelisei Karpov
F
6’3″
187
MHK Dynamo St. Petersburg
MHL
53
17
29
48
Mischa Ramel
C
5’6″
159
EHC Winterthur
Swiss League
36
9
22
49
Avval Baisov
F
6’0″
187
Mamonty Yugry
MHL
53
16
32
50
Nikita Nedopyokin
C
5’10”
187
SKA-1946 St. Petersburg
MHL
47
17
22
51
Emil Melander
D
6’1″
170
Timrå IK J20
J20 Nationell
53
16
40
52
Ryan Hopkins
D
6’1″
183
Penticton Vees
BCHL
51
10
44
53
Dennis Värmhed
C
6’2″
194
Timrå IK J20
J20 Nationell
51
32
38
54
Semyon Sinyatkin
F
5’11”
176
MHK Dynamo St. Petersburg
MHL
51
27
20
55
Cale Ashcroft
D
5’10”
185
Tri-City Storm
USHL
66
8
34
56
Mikhail Nizovkin
LW
5’11”
176
AKM Tula
MHL
58
31
32
57
Ilya Ivantsov
F
5’10”
154
Severstal Cherepovets
KHL
70
2
16
58
Matvei Maximov
F
5’10”
179
MHK Dynamo Moskva
MHL
56
22
24
59
Rasmus Rudslätt
RW
6’0″
181
AIK J20
J20 Nationell
45
25
26
60
Yegor Gorbunov
F
6’1″
187
Belye Medvedi Chelyabinsk
MHL
34
14
17
61
Oskar Haas
C/W
6’0″
163
HC Oceláři Třinec U20
Czechia U20
26
21
22
62
Valdemar Johansson
C/LW
5’11”
172
Multiple Teams
J20 Nationell
22
12
16
63
Miroslav Mikhalyov
F
5’10”
157
Dinamo-Shinnik Bobruysk
MHL
54
25
29
64
Yaroslav Busygin
D
6’3″
187
Vityaz Moscow Region
KHL
46
2
2
65
Konsta Kapanen
LW
5’9″
161
KalPa U20
U20 SM-sarja
23
7
22
66
Ivan Ryabov
F
5’11”
185
MHK Krylia Sovetov Moskva
MHL
33
9
17
67
Onni Leppänen
C/W
5’8″
165
Jokerit U20
U20 SM-sarja
31
13
25
68
Nikolai Khvorov
F
6’1″
168
Omskie Yastreby
MHL
62
12
39
69
Jeremi Tammela
C
5’9″
179
Lukko U20
U20 SM-sarja
45
21
35
70
Maxim Maltsev
C
5’11”
201
Loko Yaroslavl
MHL
59
24
24
71
Maxim Sapezhnikov
RW
5’8″
179
Amurskie Tigry Khabarovsk
MHL
46
18
22
72
Gleb Al. Ivanov
D
6’0″
176
Torpedo Nizhny Novgorod
KHL
59
1
5
73
Adrian Carnebo
D
6’2″
185
Djurgårdens IF J20
J20 Nationell
49
7
33
74
Maddox Fleming
RW
6’1″
194
Sioux Falls Stampede
USHL
59
13
34
75
Dakota MacIntosh
C
6’2″
201
Alberni Valley Bulldogs
BCHL
50
28
34
76
Dmitri Katelevsky
C
6’0″
174
Bars Kazan
VHL
19
7
2
77
Sam Court
D
5’10”
190
Brooks Bandits
AJHL
67
13
64
78
Otto Hokkanen
C/W
6’2″
187
SaiPa U20
U20 SM-sarja
25
11
16
79
Tommaso De Luca
C/LW
6’0″
187
Spokane Chiefs
WHL
65
16
33
80
Matvei Ladutko
F
5’11”
183
Dinamo-Shinnik Bobruysk
MHL
51
16
22
81
Luke Woodworth
C
5’9″
154
Drummondville Voltigeurs
QMJHL
77
20
49
82
Dylan Godbout
F
5’11”
185
Sioux City Musketeers
USHL
64
14
35
83
Vladislav Razdyakonov
F
5’10”
150
Avto Yekaterinburg
MHL
57
27
18
84
Chase Pietila
D
6’1″
185
Youngstown Phantoms
USHL
69
7
34
85
Vladislav Romanov
LW
6’2″
192
SKA-1946 St. Petersburg
MHL
53
17
28
86
Eli Sebastian
C
6’0″
185
Green Bay Gamblers
USHL
65
17
32
87
Ruslan Gimbatov
F
6’5″
209
MHK Dynamo St. Petersburg
MHL
36
11
17
88
Andrei Kozlov
F
5’8″
157
Stalnye Lisy Magnitogorsk
MHL
54
22
17
89
Robin Sapousek
C
6’0″
148
HC Energie Karlovy Vary U20
Czechia U20
21
15
14
90
Ilya Kvochko
C/LW
5’9″
168
Stalnye Lisy Magnitogorsk
MHL
51
11
32
91
Martin Johnsen
C
5’10”
176
Färjestad BK J20
J20 Nationell
36
14
25
92
Nikolaus Heigl
F
5’10”
174
RB Hockey Juniors
Alps Hockey League
20
11
22
93
Nikolai Dumchenko
D
6’4″
203
MHK Dynamo St. Petersburg
MHL
49
8
23
94
Ilya Rogovsky
C/LW
5’11”
179
Multiple Teams
MHL
61
20
27
95
Venni Tolppola
C/RW
6’0″
163
Lukko U20
U20 SM-sarja
35
9
27
96
Miro Järvenpää
F
6’1″
170
Lukko U20
U20 SM-sarja
43
18
31
97
Filipp Permyakov
LW
6’1″
172
Tolpar Ufa
MHL
55
17
34
98
Vladimir Korobintsev
F
6’0″
161
Mamonty Yugry
MHL
58
23
27
99
Vadim Fattakhov
F
5’8″
143
MHK Spartak Moskva
MHL
47
25
16
100
Daniil Lipsky
F
6’1″
181
Dinamo-Shinnik Bobruysk
MHL
55
13
26
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.
As the calendar turns to August, we will be shifting our focus full time to the upcoming NHL season soon. Before we do that, though, at least one piece of offseason business remains–a recap of the Seattle Kraken’s 2023 NHL Draft.
How do the Kraken draft picks stack up on the Sound Of Hockey Big Board? How have public draft experts graded Seattle’s performance? What do we know about the newest Kraken players? Let’s dive in.
For the second year in a row, the Kraken accumulated a deep and talented class
Last year, at the 2022 NHL Draft, the Seattle Kraken leveraged extra draft picks in the second round to acquire five of the top 50 players on the Sound Of Hockey Big Board.
Remarkably, history repeated itself at the 2023 NHL Draft. Again the Kraken were armed with extra second-round picks from the team’s trades at the 2022 NHL trade deadline, and again the team came away with five top-50 players on the Sound Of Hockey Big Board. Seattle’s five top-50 players tied San Jose for most in the NHL. No other team obtained more than three.
The key distinction this year was that Seattle’s own draft picks were those of a playoff team, rather than those of a 60-point team. Last year, the Kraken were able to grab the No. 1 overall player on the Big Board, Shane Wright, but did not have a similar opportunity to draft any true top-tier amateur players this year.
That said, the Kraken did take (at least) two high-upside swings during the 2023 draft on players that have the potential to provide top-tier production. Seattle’s first-round pick Eduard Sale was frequently projected as a top-10 draft choice after his draft-minus-one year in which he posted 99 points in 44 games in Czechia’s top junior league. His season was so good, he made the rare leap to Extraliga, Czechia’s top pro league, as a 17-year-old. He played a limited role, though, and met adversity playing against veterans in one of the best professional leagues in the world. Still lauded as one of the most skilled playmakers and scorers in the draft, the Kraken could have a top-tier talent if Sale can find his offensive footing again.
Likewise, the Kraken took a big swing at offensive talent in the later stages of the second round in the form of Tri-City defenseman Lukas Dragicevic. Setting aside high school players, Dragicevic scored more total points (79) and on a per-game basis (1.07 points per game) than any other right-handed defenseman in the 2023 NHL Draft. Some scouts question whether Dragicevic can be good enough defensively, but his potential as a blueliner proficient in the transition game and on the power play is significant.
Overall, Seattle consistently found value with their draft picks–at least in the eyes of the Sound Of Hockey Big Board. In total, only 87 players were selected at a draft position equal to or later than the player’s rank on the Big Board. In other words, these are the choices that the Big Board would deem a “value” pick. The Kraken selected seven of those 87 players, most in the league. No other team selected more than five. Columbus, Las Vegas, San Jose, and Philadelphia each accomplished that feat.
Public draft analysts ranked the Kraken draft class highly
For these reasons, it is not surprising that public draft analysts (upon whose work the Big Board was built) were generally complimentary of Seattle’s draft, frequently referencing it among the strongest draft classes assembled:
Seattle’s draft picks bring a wide array of talents
Pick No. 20, Eduard Sale, LW, HC Kometa Brno (Czechia)
Height: 73 inches | Weight: 168 lbs | Shot: L | 7 goals, 7 assists, 49 games played
Big Board: 17 | Highest rank: 7 (Craig Button)
Analytics Rank: 21 | NHLe Rank: 25
Scouting perspective: “[Sale is] a smooth skater who is noticeable in transition for both his ability to weave up ice and facilitate and also his ability to create breakaways for himself and beat goalies one-on-one. He’s got superb vision and ranks among the best in the class at dissecting coverage as a passer. I love him on the half-wall/point on the PP with his ability to hit east-west seams (he just seems to see every lane and opening). He can slow it down and pick things apart or hurry up his passes through holes. He has shown a knack for making big plays at big moments and can really shoot it, whether with a quick-release wrister or his dangerous one-timer.” – Scott Wheeler
Pick analysis: Eduard Sale came to Seattle Kraken Development Camp and showed rust early. He was nondescript for long stretches. But by the end of the three-on-three scrimmage on the last day, he was starting to show the skill that made him a top prospect coming into the 2022-23 season. In one sequence he showed high-end handling and scoring touch, roofing a backhander. Sale is likely to come to Kraken camp in the fall and then spend the season with the Barrie Colts in the OHL. How he progresses this year is of paramount importance to Seattle’s prospect pipeline.
Height: 73 inches | Weight: 194 lbs | Shot: L | 32 goals, 33 assists, 77 games played
Big Board: 48 | Highest rank: 36 (Peter Baracchini)
Analytics Rank: 39 | NHLe Rank: 78
Scouting perspective: “Rehkopf is [a] bigger build with an interesting blend of size and skill. He has a pro level frame and shot already. . . . He has also shown the ability to play both down the middle and on the wing. . . . If able to develop his skill set effectively, there could be a . . . middle-six forward that can dominate middle ice. He also has the length and active stick to provide value on a penalty kill unit. There are concerns about Rehkopf’s engagement with the play off the puck, as well as his commitment to physical play . . . .” – Ben Jordan
Pick analysis: Rehkopf has no shortage of physical tools, and his skills impressed during portions of Seattle Kraken Development Camp too when he displayed a heavy and accurate shot. Rehkopf’s counting stats during his 2022-23 season in the OHL were good but not elite, and scouting reports cast doubt on his off-puck engagement and defensive-zone play. On the other hand, Seattle Director of Amateur Scouting Robert Kron complimented Rehkopf’s two-way game when describing the pick. Rehkopf feels like a player with volatility in his projection, but with several different avenues to earn professional playing time.
Height: 72 inches | Weight: 163 lbs | Shot: L | 4 goals, 3 assists, 41 games played
Big Board: 38 | Highest rank: 23 (Dobber Prospects)
Analytics Rank: 52 | NHLe Rank: 143
Scouting perspective: “Molgaard’s excellent defensive work has resulted in him playing most of his year in the prestigious SHL mainly as a role player. Molgaard has an . . . exceptional defensive toolset and a composed mindset lets him disrupt his opponents frequently and successfully. Offensively, he has understandably struggled at the SHL level given his role but his nippy skating has been a danger in the lower levels. At international and the U-20 level Molgaard proved he can ‘the guy’ with driving offense with great vision for teammates and a well-rounded skillset.” – Joe Maciag
Pick analysis: Molgaard exudes maturity. This manifests on the ice, where he displayed a responsible two-way game in the SHL as a 17-year-old. It also shows off the ice in his dealings with the media, including his interview with Sound Of Hockey’s own John Barr and Darren Brown. The question with Molgaard is whether he can score enough to play at the NHL level. Further developing his offensive skill level is key to his future.
Height: 74 inches | Weight: 181 lbs | Shot: R | 15 goals, 64 assists, 74 games played
Big Board: 33 | Highest rank: 20 (McKeen’s Hockey)
Analytics Rank: 19 | NHLe Rank: 8
Scouting perspective: “Lukas Dragicevic is the best offensive defenceman in this year’s draft. No one combines his level of puck skills, vision, and activation. For both of his WHL seasons, Tri-City’s offence has flowed through him. He’s the initiator, connector, and often the finisher. And he led the team in ice time both seasons – no small feat for a player who switched from forward just a few years ago. . . . Full stop, the defence must improve to get the green light in the NHL.” – Elite Prospects
Pick analysis: Before the draft, I mentioned Dragicevic as a first-round candidate based on his rare point production from the blue line. Match that production with a right-handed shot, six-foot-two frame, and skating talent (even if it is still in need of refinement), and you have a defenseman with almost every quality a player development program could ask for. His movements and reads on defense, particularly defending the rush, will need to improve, but it’s not a long shot to think those improvements will come since he has only played as a blueliner for three years.
Height: 73 inches | Weight: 181 lbs | Shot: L | 6 goals, 36 assists, 69 games played
Big Board: 50 | Highest rank: 28 (Dobber Prospects)
Analytics Rank: 50 | NHLe Rank: 55
Scouting perspective: “Kelowna asked [Caden Price] to take on a lot of responsibility as the leader of their blue line, but the Rockets never fully clicked as a team, and when things started to go sideways, he didn’t have a lot of support underneath him. He didn’t look ready or comfortable in the role he had, so the challenge for scouts now is trying to determine what sort of role you can project for him as a future NHLer. The most appealing thing about his game is that there really isn’t anything unappealing about it. He’s well-rounded and highly versatile. With good smarts, a relatively full toolbox and a can-do attitude he can play the game any way you want him to, and every coach loves having guys like that around.” – McKeen’s Hockey
Pick analysis: Price is another defenseman long on both physical tools and skills. He has not put it all together into game production to the same extent as Lukas Dragicevic, but his advocates in the scouting community suggest he can still do it and ascend into that upper echelon. Others look at Price and scratch their heads as to why he didn’t produce more offensively and defensively. This coming season will be crucial for Price as he will likely have a featured role on the Kelowna blue line. Can he shore up his defensive game and get closer to a point per game on the offensive side? He’ll have the opportunity.
Pick No. 116, Andrei Loshko, C, Chicoutimi Saguenéens (QMJHL)
Height: 73 inches | Weight: 170 lbs | Shot: L | 22 goals, 49 assists, 72 games played
Big Board: 122 | Highest rank: 89 (FC Hockey)
Analytics Rank: 98 | NHLe Rank: 113
Scouting perspective: “Loshko plays like a veteran. He’s the player the coach sends over the boards to counter the opposition’s top line, to play on the penalty kill, and protect leads. His mature game impressed our staff in every single viewing. He applied his team’s system well and offered timely passing options to teammates in transition. ‘He reloads defensively, anticipates the next play of opponents, supports teammates on breakouts, and knows his next play in possession,’ Elite Prospects lead scout David St-Louis wrote in a November report. ‘The hockey sense looks above-average — offensively, too. He’s really intriguing.’” – Elite Prospects
Pick analysis: Scouts credit Loshko for playing a simple but effective two-way game. He is able to slow down the chaos around him and make the right play more often than not. Whether he can keep up with professional pace and score enough in the NHL is an open question, but most scouts that got a close look at him came away raving about him and describing a potential fourth-line checking forward.
Andrei Loshko shoots the puck at Kraken Development Camp (Photo/Brian Liesse)
Height: 74 inches | Weight: 181 lbs | Shot: R | 8 goals, 18 assists, 72 games played
Big Board: 167 | Highest rank: 92 (McKeen’s Hockey)
Analytics Rank: 146 | NHLe Rank: 240
Scouting perspective: “[Hammell’s] game so far has certainly leaned much further on the defensive side than the offensive one. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, however, as leaning into that specialty might be the best application of his tools. He’s strong and sturdy in his lower body and combines that with clean footwork and a long reach to be a real pain in the neck to get through or behind in one-on-one situations. He’s tough and physical, whether that’s by driving players into the boards hard and pinning them there or battling them tooth and nail in front of his goalie, and he can play this way without getting whistled for unnecessary penalties. He’s going to get a lot of opportunities over the next two seasons to diversify and expand his game through more encouraged usage as a puck-mover and offense creator, but maybe temper expectations about how successful that will go.” – McKeen’s Hockey
Pick analysis: This pick has an interesting blend of “floor” and “ceiling.” On the one hand, Hammell is a six-foot-two, physical, righty defenseman, with solid athleticism whom scouts believe should be able to play representative defense. Those traits carry a lot of value in the NHL and could earn him professional minutes. On the other hand, Hammell was believed to be an exciting offensive prospect coming into the 2022-23 season, and according to scouts, he did show solid passing and transition game skills, even if the point totals lagged. Hammell will play this coming season in Everett, so Seattle will be able to monitor his development closely.
Pick No. 168, Visa Vedenpaa, G, Kärpät U20 (U20 SM-sarja)
Height: 74 inches | Weight: 170 lbs | Catches: L | .886 save percentage, 31 games played
Big Board: 222
Analytics Rank: 1937 | NHLe Rank: 1017
Scouting perspective: “Visa Vedenpää is an exciting young goaltender in the Kärpät development system in Finland. . . . Playing with good instincts, he reacts well to broken or quick- developing plays. His strong technical base puts him into position to do that, because he stays within the frame and is rarely caught out of his net. He plays with moderate depth, with his heels generally at the top of the crease on plays off the rush. . . . His skating ability might be his weakest aspect.” – Elite Prospects
Pick analysis: Seattle drafted goalie Niklas Kokko out of Kärpät U20 in Finland in the 2022 draft and came back for an encore in 2023, selecting the goalie that took Kokko’s place for that same club, Vedenpaa. The success of the Kärpät program in developing goaltenders is well documented, and it surely didn’t hurt that Kokko appears to have taken a further step forward since he was drafted. Vedenpaa is highly regarded by the Finnish National Team, as he was one of three Finnish goalies brought to the World Juniors Summer Showcase. He is unlikely to be at the 2024 World Juniors–that should be Kokko and Topias Leinonen–but the invitation suggests he’s a prime candidate to be in net in 2025.
Niklas Kokko and Visa Vedenpaa watch the Kraken Development Camp scrimmage (Photo/Brian Liesse)
Height: 69 inches | Weight: 168 lbs | Shot: L | 1 goal, 0 assists, 18 games played
Big Board: 104 | Highest ranking: 49 (Peter Baracchini)
Analytics Rank: 187 | NHLe Rank: 1919
Scouting perspective: “Forsfjall is a strong playmaking forward. He can run a power play well enough and find seams to create chances. He has good hands and can create in small areas too. He’s not that big or physical, but Forsfjall gives an honest effort every night, can PK, and wins enough puck battles. Forsfjall has played center in junior regularly but I’m guessing he’s a wing as a pro due to his frame. He has strong speed and in-tight quickness although it’s not elite small guy skating. He has talent, but whether there’s enough in his game to be a legit NHL’er is up for debate” – Corey Pronman
Pick analysis: Easy agility on the ice, plus speed, strong puck handling in transition, and tenacity and instincts on defense, particularly penalty kill, characterize Forsfjall’s game. He did not score very much as a 17-year-old fourth-line center in the SHL, but that is to be expected. It’s easy to see the value he brings and fall in love with him as a player, but the question will be whether he can squeeze enough offense out of his profile to succeed. He is a willing forechecker, but light on his skates and won’t be moving hulking defenders off the puck. His shot seems solid, but he has not been able to use it to generate much production yet.
Pick No. 212, Zaccharya Wisdom, RW, Cedar Rapids RoughRiders (USHL)
Height: 73 inches | Weight: 172 lbs | Shot: R | 29 goals, 20 assists, 64 games played
Big Board: 207 | Highest ranking: 164 (McKeen’s Hockey)
Analytics Rank: 584 | NHLe Rank: 461
Scouting perspective: “The significant improvement in production this year thanks to improved on-puck play has put him back on the draft radar. Still a high energy and tenacious off-puck player, Wisdom can now drive play with the puck on his stick thanks to upgrades made to his skating and refinements made to his skill and finishing ability. His upside is likely still pretty limited, but the well-rounded nature of his game makes him an ideal bottom six candidate.” – McKeen’s Hockey
Pick analysis: Wisdom is an overaged, physical winger, who took a step forward with his puck handling and scoring during his 2022-23 season in the USHL, according to scouts. Some see a late-blooming power forward profile capable of earning a bottom-six role down the road. His low point production and age work against him, though. Wisdom is bound for Colorado College in the fall, so he has a longer development timeline and an opportunity to continue to build his game brick-by-brick at the NCAA level.
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.
Two months into the 2022-23 NHL season there was a national media narrative going around that the Kraken’s early season success was driven by an unsustainable shooting percentage and that it was just a matter of time before they would drop toward the bottom of the Pacific Division. That scenario never played out, and the Kraken finished the season with 100 points in the standings. Seattle ultimately turned out the second-highest shooting percentage in the league at 11.6 percent, behind only the Edmonton Oilers.
One would think the 82 regular-season games and 14 games in the Stanley Cup Playoffs would have been enough of a sample size to recognize the Kraken were not lucky, they were good. However, this offseason, the concept of a shooting percentage regression is starting to bleed into the conversation again. We could just dismiss this criticism as somebody viewing the team from afar, but I thought the best thing to do was dig into the numbers myself.
Power play contributions
The first thing I thought about is if the Kraken’s high shooting percentage is being propped up by a disproportionate number of power-play goals. The theory here is that because teams have a higher shooting percentage on the power play, a disproportionate number of goals on the power play could have inflated the Kraken’s shooting percentage to the rest of the league.
That was not the case last season…
Seattle had the fourth-lowest percentage of its goals scored on the power play. This was driven by a lower-than-average number of power-play opportunities and poor power-play conversion by the Kraken. They were ranked 21st in the league in both opportunities and conversion. The Kraken’s shooting percentage on the power play was close to league average, thus not inflating their overall shooting percentage. Conversely, Edmonton had the highest shooting percentage on the power play across the league.
The below visual also illustrates that the Kraken had the highest shooting percentage at even strength.
The Kraken’s high shooting percentage is not being propped up by the power play.
Their strength was their depth
The story of the 2022-23 Seattle Kraken was that their strength was their depth. I have often described the Kraken as a team with three second lines and one third line.
With that context, my theory is that the Kraken’s high shooting percentage is attributed to the fact their third and fourth lines are better than most team’s third and fourth lines. Therefore, we did not see a drop-off in shooting percentages that most other teams in the league had deeper in their lineups.
To investigate that theory, I would need to classify all players into where they fit in their respective lineup. Since depth charts are subjective and can often change throughout the year, that is next to impossible to come up with a clear rule around defining lines for all 32 teams. Instead, I am ranking the players with the most minutes played for the team and then bucketing them into groups of three for the forwards and groups of two for the defensemen.
As such, these are not “lines” in the traditional sense, but more tiers of contributions by minutes. For example, the first group for the Kraken is Alex Wennberg, Jordan Eberle, and Yanni Gourde because those three forwards logged the most minutes for the Kraken, even though Wennberg played most with Jaden Schwartz and Oliver Bjorkstrand throughout the season. It is not perfect, but it is a fair proxy for overall contribution when comparing across teams.
Forwards shooting percentage
This might be stating the obvious, but forwards generally have a higher shooting percentage and log more shots compared to defensemen, so it is important that we evaluate them separately. When we look at each group based on their total minutes played for their team, Seattle’s first forward group ranked as one of the lowest in the league for shooting percentage. But, as you can see below, the Kraken ranked in the top seven for shooting percentage for all other forward groups.
This would support the claim that the depth of this team is its strength, and therefore contributed to its relatively high shooting percentage.
For more context, this is how the groupings played out using the logic explained above.
Note that Eeli Tolvanen, who was acquired on waivers halfway through the season, did not have enough time on ice for the Kraken to make it into Seattle’s top 12 for time played. Tolvanen ranked second in shooting percentage behind Jared McCann for players with over 10 games for the Kraken.
Defensemen shooting percentages
On the defensive side, the Kraken’s top two pairs rank in the top four in shooting percentage.
The defensive contribution pairs align to the actual depth chart pairs for most of the season.
Individual skater shooting percentages
Another area we should evaluate is which Seattle Kraken players had a shooting percentage in 2022-23 that was above their three-year-average shooting percentage. Was this a case where most of the players were shooting above their average? Or was the team constructed of a collection of better shooters compared to other teams?
Here is how the individual shooting percentages break down against players’ three-year averages, with the blue bars representing shooting percentages above a player’s three-year average and the orange bars representing shooting percentages below.
Of the forward group, six players had higher than their three-year average, while six players had below their average. On defense, four out of the six defensemen had above-average shooting percentages. Attempting to be objective, it is conceivable and probably likely Jared McCann, Schwartz, and Tolvanen will see a regression in their shooting percentages, but conversely, it would be equally likely that Bjorkstrand, Andre Burakovsky, and Gourde see improvements in that category. In Bjorkstrand’s case, he seems positioned to improve his shooting percentage. Remember, he took some time getting used to his new team and was ice cold early in the season, only to hit his stride in the second half of the year.
On the blue line, it is likely that Jamie Oleksiak and Justin Schultz see regressions as well, but keep in mind they only accounted for 3.7 percent and 6.6 percent of the Kraken shots respectively. So, a drop in their shooting percentages won’t impact the team’s overall shooting percentage compared to a drop in Eberle’s, for example, who accounted for 11.7 percent of the Kraken’s shots on his own.
Kraken departures
Most Kraken fans might have noticed that the fourth group of forwards in the table above is made up exclusively of players that are no longer with the Kraken. Ryan Donato (CHI), Morgan Geekie (BOS), and Daniel Sprong (DET) have all signed with other teams this offseason. On the surface, that is a significant number of goals to replace in the lineup.
Let us put aside the shooting percentages for a moment. Collectively, the three departing forwards had 44 goals, and the Kraken will need to replace a good portion of those goals to replicate last season’s success. A full season from Burakovsky should add 10 goals, and the new addition of Kailer Yamamoto should add at least 10 goals as well. The remaining 20-goal gap will need to be filled by a mix of Shane Wright, John Hayden, Kole Lind, Tye Kartye, and Pierre-Edouard Bellemare. Who of those five players draw into the lineup is probably the biggest question heading into the season, with Lind and Kartye being the most natural goal scorers of the group. It is also still a question if AHL success for players like Lind and Kartye can translate to the NHL for a full season.
Yamamoto’s 10.3 percent shooting percentage last season is lower than all three of the Kraken departures, but his career shooting percentage is 13.9 percent, so we should anticipate a rebound. The other players looking to crack the lineup are less predictable, since most of them have limited NHL experience.
Wrapping it up
When you hear people talking about a shooting regression from the Kraken, take it with a grain of salt. If it does happen, it will most likely be driven by the departure of the Kraken’s fourth line of Donato, Geekie, and Sprong. All three of them are good shooters, and it was reflected in the numbers. Yamamoto should be able to replace one of them, and the Kraken hope to get a full season of Burakovsky and Tolvanen, both of whom have above-average shots that will offset some of the loss of the other two fourth-line players.
On June 26, Matty Beniers took the stage at Bridgestone Arena in Nashville, Tenn., to accept the Calder Trophy as the NHL rookie of the year. It was the culmination of a memorable first full pro season for the 20-year-old forward. Beniers scored more than any other rookie, totaling 24 goals and 33 assists in 80 regular-season games. He also played an impressive two-way game, checking difficult top-six forwards night in and night out.
Shortly after the awards ceremony, Kraken ownership and general manager Ron Francis met with Beniers and his agent Pat Brisson. The Kraken were in a busy period between the NHL Draft and free agency but made an appointment with Brisson to circle back on Beniers’s contract. “We said ‘let’s get through . . . a few days and then we’ll start talking,’” Francis recounted a few days later.
So, is the team interested in signing Beniers to a contract extension this summer? “We’d like to do that, for sure,” Francis said.
With Vince Dunn signed, Seattle’s focus may now be on Beniers. So, there is no better time to take a look at Beniers’s contract status, why the Kraken are interested in signing Beniers now, and what it might take to get pen to paper.
Beniers became eligible for a contract extension this summer
The 2023-24 season is the final year of Matty Beniers’s three-year entry-level contract (ELC). Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), a team and player can negotiate and agree to an extension of any multi-year contract, including an ELC, only in the last year of that deal. July 1, 2023, was the first day of the 2023-24 league year, and, as of that date, Beniers became eligible for a contract extension for the first time.
This is an important inflection point when the team and player must grapple with the player’s demonstrated value. Highly drafted players like Beniers have leverage to negotiate for extra performance bonuses in an ELC, but the base compensation package is a fixed amount near the league minimum. In contrast, a contract extension is not limited to any particular structure, except that (1) the term may not go beyond an upper limit of 8 years, and (2) the average annual value (AAV) must fall between an upper limit (20 percent of the salary cap) and lower limit ($775,000).
Upon expiration of the ELC, Beniers is scheduled to be a restricted free agent without arbitration rights. (Need an explainer on anything related to restricted free agency? Check out the appendix to this post.) In theory, if Beniers is not re-signed before next summer, he could talk with other teams and solicit an “offer sheet.” For all intents and purposes, though, this is a contract negotiation between two parties, Beniers and the Kraken.
Beniers and Seattle could be motivated to deal
Can the team and player reach an agreement on a long-term extension? Both sides are likely open to the concept.
From the team’s perspective, there are many positives to a long-term deal. Beniers is an early prime player, still on the upward trajectory of his anticipated aging curve. Securing his services long term based on his performance to date may yield surplus contract value down the road. Furthermore, the salary cap is likely to start escalating at (or almost) five percent per season starting next summer. Locking Beniers in now could look even better in four years when the salary cap is $100 million.
Speaking of which, if the team’s true “window” to compete is in the mid-to-late 2020’s–as I argued in a post earlier this week–minimizing Beniers’s cap hit in that timeframe should be the team’s priority. Signing a long-term deal now is the best way to accomplish that.
On the other hand, the team’s downside on a long-term extension is limited by a CBA rule that allows clubs to buy out remaining years on the contract of a player 25 years old or younger at one third of the remaining contract value. Beniers will not be 26 until Nov., 2028. This means that even in a disastrous scenario, the Kraken would still have flexibility for the majority of the contract term to move on from Beniers with limited salary cap consequences.
For Beniers’s part, a long-term deal also makes sense. Even after the 2023-24 season, he will still be at least five years from unrestricted free agency. A long-term extension would provide him with some security against performance regression or injury. The latter consideration is surely a factor for the slight-framed center. As I will detail below, similar dynamics have led to a spate of long-term deals for similarly positioned young forwards over the last couple years.
Therefore, the key to a successful long-term agreement will be finding common ground on contract AAV. If the sides can’t do that, they may defer further negotiations to next summer or agree to a “bridge” extension at a lower rate. Bridge deals are shorter contracts, in the range of one-to-four years, that cover some but not all of a player’s restricted free agent years. These agreements set up another contract negotiation between the team and player closer to unrestricted free agency.
Bridge deals make sense for mid-roster players or players with high uncertainty in their projections. For example, Seattle and Vince Dunn agreed to a two-year bridge deal after the Expansion Draft. That two-year contract set up this summer’s negotiation. The Dunn example underscores the risk of a bridge deal from the team’s perspective. The team may get a lower AAV for the term of the bridge deal itself, but, oftentimes, the player’s leverage is higher after the bridge deal expires because he is closer to unrestricted free agency. This could cause the team to pay more for less productive, post-peak seasons in order to keep the player. Seattle seemingly avoided that with Dunn by signing him to a deal that ends when he will be 30 years old.
Comparable contracts could guide the negotiations
I gathered contract information from CapFriendly. Matty Beniers has played 90 games and scored 66 points (.733 points per game). Using CapFriendly’s contract comparable tool, I compiled a long list of contracts signed by players as restricted free agents, at a similar age, and with similar games played and points totals at the time of signing.
From this long list I further filtered the results manually, looking for the players that were most similar in point-per-game production and in Evolving Hockey’s Goals Above Replacement (GAR) analytic, which accounts for gameplay contributions beyond point totals.
This process yielded a set of recent contracts with young forwards that will likely serve as a reference point for Beniers and the team. Beniers has less experience and total production than most of these comparables, which weighs against him, but his per-game point production and advanced analytics tend to be similar or better, which weighs in his favor.
For each of these contracts, CapFriendly supplied not only the dollar average annual value (AAV) of the deal, but also the percentage of the salary cap the AAV represented at the time the deal was signed. Using this percentage, I was able to adjust these contracts into a present value by multiplying the percentage by the current NHL salary cap ($83.5 million). This facilitates a fairer, direct comparison to a potential Beniers deal. I refer to this figure as the “cap-adjusted AAV” below.
Let’s dive in.
Reference player: Matty Beniers, Center Statistics at (potential) signing: 90 games played | 66 points | 20 years old
Comparable no. 1: Joshua Norris, Center Contract: 8 years, $7.95 million AAV ($8,049,000 cap-adjusted AAV) Signing date: July 14, 2022 Statistics at signing: 125 games played | 90 points | 23 years old
Contract comparable no. 2: Tim Stutzle, Center Contract: 8 years, $8.35 million AAV ($8,450,200 cap-adjusted AAV) Signing date: September 7, 2022 Statistics at signing: 132 games played | 87 points | 21 years old
Contract comparable no. 3: Nick Suzuki, Center Contract: 8 years, $7.875 million AAV ($8,066,100 cap-adjusted AAV) Signing date: October 12, 2021 Statistics at signing: 127 games played | 82 points | 22 years old
Contract comparable no. 4: Nico Hischier, Center Contract: 7 years, $7.25 million AAV ($7,431,500 cap-adjusted AAV) Signing date: October 18, 2019 Statistics at signing: 156 games played | 101 points | 21 years old
Contract comparable no. 5: John Tavares, Center Contract: 6 years, $5.50 million AAV ($7,139,250 cap-adjusted AAV) Signing date: September 14, 2011 Statistics at signing: 161 games played | 121 points | 20 years old
Contract comparable no. 6: Nazem Kadri, Center Contract: 2 years, $2.90 million AAV ($3,765,850 cap-adjusted AAV) Signing date: September 10, 2013 Statistics at signing: 99 games played | 63 points | 22 years old
Contract comparable no. 7: Logan Couture, Center Contract: 2 years, $2.875 million AAV ($3,732,450 cap-adjusted AAV) Signing date: August 30, 2011 Statistics at signing: 104 games played | 65 points | 22 years old
The comparable contracts above reveal a pretty tight range for a long-term deal between the team and the Calder Trophy winner–an eight-year term at somewhere between $7.15 million and $8.45 million AAV. Failing agreement in that range, a bridge deal might look something like a two-year deal around $3.75 million AAV.
Projecting a contract for Matty Beniers
Based on the comparables above, I’ll project that the Kraken and Matty Beniers agree to an eight-year extension this summer (or early in the 2023-24 season) worth approximately $8 million AAV, give or take a few hundred thousand dollars. This would make Beniers the team’s highest-paid player when the extension kicks in, but keeps him close enough within range of Dunn’s recent $7.35 million AAV contract that he will not carry undue pressure as the team’s singular star player. Any issues in the room with making a 20-year-old the team’s highest-paid player would be mitigated somewhat by the fact that Beniers would still play this coming season under his existing ELC that calls for a base salary of just $897,500.
That said, there are a few reasons to be skeptical that this type of deal will get done. Francis has never signed a player to an eight-year contract. He has also never signed a player to a contract worth more than $37.1 million in total value (Jaccob Slavin was the highest total contract), $7.35 million AAV (Dunn was the highest AAV), or 8.8 percent of total cap hit (Dunn again). It will likely require new highs in each of these measures to sign Beniers long term.
Further, one of Beniers’s closer comparable contracts not included in the above list is Elias Lindholm’s 2015 deal with Francis’s Carolina Hurricanes. The Hurricanes and a 20-year-old Lindholm agreed to a two-year bridge deal worth $2.7 million AAV ($3,156,300 AAV in cap-adjusted terms). Lindholm’s point production at that time (.43 points per game) pales in comparison with Beniers’s pace (.72 points per game), however.
Finally, it is reasonable to point out that Francis resisted giving defenseman Vince Dunn a long-term deal earlier this summer. While many saw an eight-year deal as a foregone conclusion, Francis eventually signed Dunn for just four years.
Beniers’s case is different than Dunn’s case in several material respects, though. First, Beniers is much younger than Dunn, and it is much easier to project him to sustain or improve his performance level to date.
Second, while Beniers’s track record is shorter than Dunn’s, he has not fallen below an above-average performance level at any point in his hockey career. Dunn’s record has been more volatile. As recently as the 2021-22 season, Dunn looked like a talented but mistake-prone, second-pair defenseman.
Third, Beniers has a rare profile. He is a second overall pick and a Calder Trophy winner who plays a premium position and displays leadership qualities on and off the ice. He’s the type of player any team would like to have as a cornerstone. While there are risks, particularly given that Beniers has only one full season of NHL experience, I think the team and player will find common ground on an extension that keeps the young forward in the Pacific Northwest long term.
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.
