By Max Bultman, Scott Wheeler and Corey Pronman
The prize of the 2024 NHL Draft class is no secret. Boston University center Macklin Celebrini is this year’s consensus top prospect, and as a result, there’s no real suspense or debate around what the San Jose Sharks will do with the No. 1 pick later this month. The Athletic’s NHL prospect writers, Corey Pronman and Scott Wheeler, have Celebrini in a tier of his own atop their final draft rankings.
GO DEEPER
2024 NHL Mock Draft: Pronman, Wheeler and Bultman play GM and pick the first round
After that, though? This draft gets very interesting very quickly — starting with the Chicago Blackhawks, who hold the No. 2 pick. Wheeler’s next-best player is dynamic Russian winger Ivan Demidov. Pronman has Michigan State defenseman Artyom Levshunov in a tier by himself behind Celebrini. As The Athletic’s Scott Powers has written, those two players look to be the top candidates for Chicago, as the Blackhawks begin building around last summer’s No. 1 pick Connor Bedard.
So, we asked Pronman and Wheeler to formally debate the decision Chicago will face later this month, which will set the tone for the rest of the draft.
Max Bultman: The Blackhawks obviously have a big decision on their hands here. I think I can guess where you both stand based on your lists, but Scott, we’ll start with you. How would you approach this?
Wheeler: I think the calculus has to be about upside for the Blackhawks. They have a strong, deep pool that has focused primarily on speed and/or work ethic at forward and length on defense. Kevin Korchinski. Oliver Moore. Frank Nazar. Sam Rinzel. Lukas Reichel. Ethan Del Mastro. Ryan Greene. Nick Lardis. Colton Dach. Wyatt Kaiser. Roman Kantserov. Gavin Hayes. Nolan Allan. Alex Vlasic has become a real positive with the NHL club. But they don’t have another true star coming behind Bedard.
Advertisement
I’m a huge believer in Levshunov. He was No. 2 on my board for longer than Demidov this year and the appeal of his size, length and free-spirited game is real. I think he’s going to be a stud, but he’s not a surefire No. 1, and there isn’t a player in this class after Celebrini who is more talented than Demidov. I see first-line, game-breaking-level skill. A potential running mate for Bedard at five-on-five and on PP1. I’m talking point-per-game upside. They’re going to need another one or two of those around Bedard (every top team has two at minimum and sometimes three or four) and the best way to find that is to draft it because those guys are almost never available in free agency.
The Blackhawks are also only going to get so many bullets at the draft before they have to start to round the corner, and while we expect them to have a high pick again next year, odds are they won’t win one of the lotteries and draft at No. 2 again. This is quite likely their best and only chance to draft a forward with Demidov’s upside.
Bultman: Corey, how do you think the Blackhawks should look at this choice?
Pronman: Levshunov is the choice for me at No. 2. He ticks every box. He has an NHL frame and skating ability. He has great hands and offensive sense. He makes a ton of plays, showing more offense in the Big Ten as a draft eligible than either Owen Power or Quinn Hughes at the same age. He also played tough minutes and killed penalties for Michigan State even if his defensive play isn’t the main thing I like about him. He had arguably the best modern-era season ever by a draft-eligible defenseman in college, he just happened to do it in the same season in which Zeev Buium was arguably better. He looks like a potential No. 1 defenseman in the NHL in my book. He has some Brent Burns in him.
Advertisement
Almost every other top prospect will have some questions. Cayden Lindstrom has some minor health and offense questions. Anton Silayev has some minor puck-moving questions. For Demidov, it would be size and minor skating concerns. Silayev and Demidov also have the Russian variable. I would consider Carter Yakemchuk here but I don’t think that’s the universal thought in the league.
I can pick Levshunov and sleep easy at night. He looks on the path to stardom and fills the incredibly difficult spot to acquire of a potential 1st PP/ No. 1 defenseman if he hits.
Bultman: I think Scott’s point about maximizing the upside of this pick is a really interesting one. Corey, you obviously have Demidov lower on your list, but that list factors in more than upside. Would you agree Demidov is the highest-upside player?
Pronman: Well I think Levshunov has a ton of upside. I think he’s the second most talented player in the draft. It’s clear NHL athleticism mixed with clear NHL skill. Demidov is the most purely skilled player in the draft but upside to me is more than just pure skill, as I also think Levshunov has a ton of natural offense in his game as well.
You can connect the dots, if Levshunov hits, to a Burns or Erik Karlsson type. You can connect the dots with Demidov to an Artemi Panarin or Kirill Kaprizov type. All are elite players I’d love to have, but the Norris-contending No. 1 D is the player I would prefer. I also don’t buy Demidov’s upside of the same level. He is ridiculously skilled, but he has athletic limitations with his frame and awkward, albeit powerful skating stride that will concern me in how his game will translate to the NHL. I have no such hesitations with Levshunov and the skill gap is not enough to bridge the large athleticism gap for me.
You asked me how Chicago should look at it as well. I think we all can watch Demidov and Silayev on tape and compare it to what we’ve seen of Levshunov. We all have our opinions and I may be right or wrong, but I’m not going to get fired if I’m wrong on Levshunov vs. Demidov. The people in Chicago may, or it may be a major contributing factor, so I would want to be absolutely sure about that player and the lack of live views would weigh on me if I thought the decision was at all close.
Bultman: Scott, you mentioned the difficulty of finding potential point-per-game players like Demidov in free agency. Would it be fair, though, to suggest it’s at least as hard to find potential top-pair defenders like Levshunov? Or is it more a matter of your projection on him not quite being at that level?
Advertisement
Wheeler: It’s obviously incredibly difficult to find first-pairing-level defensemen as well, but I think it depends on whether you view Levshunov’s upside as that of a true No. 1. To Corey’s point, you’re less likely to be wrong about Levshunov’s projection than Demidov’s. But I don’t think worrying about job security should be a deciding factor in a decision as significant as this one. As hard as that is in practical terms for NHL scouts and managers, the good ones are comfortable taking risks and are bold in their vision. That’s how you find stars.
I like the Brent Burns comp, but I don’t see any Karlsson in Levshunov’s game and I think the areas of his game that actually need work are his finesse and his game feel/decision-making on offense — things that the Norris types (Karlsson, Fox, etc.) all have in spades. There’s still some rawness to Levshunov’s game that does come with some projection risk. The athletic tools are clearly there. He’s talented. He impacted play offensively and defensively at a very high level this season as a teenager in college hockey. I think it’s close, too, and there’s a real chance he becomes the more impactful NHLer. But he’s going to have to take some important steps to be a truly elite player, like Demidov will.
Bultman: Corey, one of Scott’s points was that this could be Chicago’s last chance for a while to draft a forward like Demidov. How would you respond to that?
Pronman: I think the disparity comes down less to the positional aspect and more to the projection. I think Scott is projecting Demidov as a potential 90-to-100-point winger, and I see a potential 70-to-80-point winger. I see a potential 1D in Levshunov, and Scott seems to lean more toward a 2D.
I can buy Demidov at No. 2 if you see a potential next Panarin or Kaprizov. That’s a superstar. I couldn’t get there with him this season as I could with, say, Matvei Michkov, who Demidov has size and compete edges on but his offensive touch is behind at the same point and times. For me, the comps for Demidov have been names like Lucas Raymond, Kevin Fiala and Jeff Skinner.
I’m frankly just not as impressed as some others with Demidov’s dominance of the MHL. It’s great, obviously, and he’s incredibly skilled. But that league is not the league it was. I often see his performance compared to Nikita Kucherov’s in that league at the same age. There are 37 teams in the MHL now (as opposed to 29 when Kucherov played), in an era where teams like SKA have three teams in that league. The top Russian prospect in the next draft is Ivan Ryabkin, an average-sized high-compete forward who scored at nearly the same rates Demidov did as a draft-1 in that league.
I just would have liked to see what Demidov could have done versus men in the VHL/KHL before elevating him to that special status as a prospect. If you have no issue with the skating, I can somewhat buy it, but as I’ve said before, I have issues with projecting that style to the NHL, which some NHL scouts do and do not agree with.
Advertisement
Bultman: Scott, what were your feelings about evaluating Demidov in the MHL, particularly without some of the tentpole international events?
Wheeler: It complicates the evaluation process a little, but ultimately, we just have what we have. I would have liked to see him at U18s, U20s and the Hlinka, too, but I also have little doubt — based on the talent level he has displayed in the MHL, the back-to-back MVPs, the way he elevated again in the playoffs, and the older, drafted players he has outplayed the last two years — he would have dominated at those events and strengthened, rather than hurt, his case as the No. 2/3 prospect in the draft because of it.
We do have some pro sample to work with as well. Had had five points in three KHL exhibition games and won an initial roster spot over Michkov with SKA. He had six shots on goal and eight attempts in the one VHL game he played in. He had four points in four games in the Sochi Hockey Open against KHL teams (and Russia’s U25 team) with SKA. It’s not the KHL regular-season sample size we had with Michkov, but I think he likely would have played a little more at the pro level had he not lost a month and a half in the fall to a knee injury.
Bultman: All right, I’ll give each of you a closing statement here to wrap this up. Corey, you first.
Pronman: I think there are so many reasons to be excited about Levshunov. He’s an NHL athlete. He has a ton of offensive skills and instincts. He and Buium were as good a draft-eligible defenseman as I’ve ever seen in college hockey. He’s proven he can go up against older players and excel. He plays a premium position. He’s on an incredible development trajectory and has excelled in North America for two years. From the first game I saw of him in the USHL, he just looked like a unique prospect. He looks like a potential star No. 1 defenseman in the NHL and the kind of player you can build a contender around.
There are other great prospects in this draft, but there isn’t another player with as clean a profile who I think checks as many boxes with emphasis outside Celebrini.
Wheeler: I’ll finish with this: If Demidov’s floor is the player type Corey highlighted (a Raymond or a Fiala) — and I believe it is — then you can live with a 60-to-70-point winger at No. 2, but there’s also a good chance Levshunov is the better player. If he’s the other end of the spectrum (a Panarin or a Kaprizov), it probably won’t matter how good Levshunov is because points come at a premium, those types are the best players on the vast majority of NHL teams (you can count on one hand the number of D in the league who are better), and he and Bedard will be one of the better one-two punches in the league in that scenario. I’d take my chances.
(Photos of Ivan Demidov and Artyom Levshunov: Maksim Konstantinov / SOPA Images / LightRocket / Getty Images; Michael Miller / ISI Photos / Getty Images)