2026 NHL Draft Thread

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Depends how you define better player. More importantly, it depends how you project each player.

The ultimate goal is to build a team, not just acquire assets.

I said if they think Bjork is the better player.

It's not my definition it's there's.

But if they do it wouldn't be wise to take a lesser player for fear that the team is fortunate enough to have three smallish centers all turn out.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I said if they think Bjork is the better player.

It's not my definition it's there's.

But if they do it wouldn't be wise to take a lesser player for fear that the team is fortunate enough to have three smallish centers all turn out.

I understand that it's their definition that matters. I just think it's an empty argument to just say 'if you think he's the better player, you take him'. There is so much more to it than that.

And I am not arguing that Malhotra is the lesser player but they should take him anyway because he's bigger, I am arguing that there are other factors, other than just offensive talent, that suggest Malhotra may be the better player, at the NHL level.

[dammage79]

Well that's why you draft these player, and for once. it's a nice problem to have, the Flames scouting gets to have essentially the pick of the litter .

I don't know much about the debate between Malhotra and Bjorck. Other than 3 or 4 inches of height.

I do know the SHL is a harder league to do what Bjorck and Stenberg are doing vs the CHL which has been weakened considerably. Is Malhotra what he really is or has the weakening of the CHL given him a bit of a illusionary bump? Similarly to the Rucks which are getting enormous amounts of hyper on CP but aren't getting the same kind of love in many draft rankings .

It's a tough year for projections. NCAA rules have changed the playing field.

SHL though, untouched by the changes and still providing consistent metrics to make projections by scouts and fans alike.

[Enoch Root]

Average NHL size: 73'6" 201"

Flames size: 73.3" 194" (smaller than Carolina)

Flames top 10 prospects: 71.9" 182"

Obviously the kids will get heavier as they become men, but the Flames are a small team that is getting smaller. Spending the most important draft pick of the rebuild so far on another smurf would be a choice.

Doing it for McKenna is one thing, because he has generational talent, but doing so for a C, when there are other choices that may be as good or better, is a different matter

[Lanny_McDonald]

Flames need size. There is some good skill and size available in this draft. Can't see the team using a high draft pick on an undersized player unless there is generational talent involved.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Average NHL size: 73'6" 201"

Flames size: 73.3" 194" (smaller than Carolina)

Flames top 10 prospects: 71.9" 182"

Obviously the kids will get heavier as they become men, but the Flames are a small team that is getting smaller. Spending the most important draft pick of the rebuild so far on another smurf would be a choice.

Doing it for McKenna is one thing, because he has generational talent, but doing so for a C, when there are other choices that may be as good or better, is a different matter

Flames are going to draft who they draft, and every single one of us should be trusting them regardless of our own ideas or preferences.

I don't know enough about Malhotra to sway one way or the other but I do know Bjorck has what the Flames covet, in spades. Regardless of size. So if they draft Malhotra over Bjorck I'll trust them. In turn you should trust the Flames scouting if they take Bjorck.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Flames need size. There is some good skill and size available in this draft. Can't see the team using a high draft pick on an undersized player unless there is generational talent involved.

Flames also need game breaking talent and drive. And to break it down further, they need impact fws right now more than defense. If they can't land McKenna/Stenberg, Bjorck should absolutely be in the mix if not the leader of the next tier of fws available.

[prizefighterinferno]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Just not true.

He more than doubled his production this year (tremendous progression), jumping from .59 PPG to 1.27 while playing 2nd line C and not getting the big offensive opportunities. His progression projects to being a 1C.

He has elite vision and and hockey sense, and while he is currently behind Bjorck in offensive talent shown, he is gaining fast and could easily end up being the better NHLer offensively.

All while DEFINITELY being better at the rest of the game.

I like Malholtra a lot and think he'll be a very good player, but I'm not sure why we're so certain that Malholtra is "definitely" better at the off-puck/defensive stuff. The OHL was pretty watered down this year, so it's tough to compare Malholtra's environment to Bjorck playing all year in a pro league at 17. (Obviously Malholtra's size makes him easier to project as a defender but every evaluator I've seen talks about how bizarrely strong Bjorck appears to be on his stick and protecting pucks).

What I would say is that Bjorck moved to playing C (first-line) by the end of the year and in these clips that have been posted is PKing and demonstrating really strong awareness in terms of defending lanes, reading developing threats, turning over pucks and killing time by turning defense into offense. He JUST turned 18. And he was doing this against grown men in one of the better pro leagues in the world.

Honestly the biggest concern for me wouldn't be "is Bjorck going to be good", it's the team building element that some have mentioned regarding overall size up the middle. Just makes you think.

[Sandman]

You can build a team with all the speed and skill in the world, but if you’re “short” on grit and size, you’re going to be out of the playoffs in no time.

[prizefighterinferno]

Originally Posted by Sandman

You can build a team with all the speed and skill in the world, but if you’re “short” on grit and size, you’re going to be out of the playoffs in no time.

Good thing Bjorck doesn't lack for grit!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Sandman

You can build a team with all the speed and skill in the world, but if you’re “short” on grit and size, you’re going to be out of the playoffs in no time.

And it can't just be bottom 6 size, you need size and grit throughout the lineup

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Sandman

You can build a team with all the speed and skill in the world, but if you’re “short” on grit and size, you’re going to be out of the playoffs in no time.

You uh, wrote it yourself Bjorck plays bigger than his size. So why is the size thing so important in this conversation specifically related to Bjorck vs Malhotra. You also said he's built like a fir hydrant I believe.

5'10" to 6ft is all the same to me. Not too small for the NHL .


Elias Pettersson is 6'2 and plays as soft as baby poo. What's the argument here.

The old Stallone proverb relates here:

It's not the size of the dog in the fight

It's the size of the fight in the dog. And there's not a single player in the top half of this draft that overrides Bjorck in the department

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Average NHL size: 73'6" 201"

Flames size: 73.3" 194" (smaller than Carolina)

Flames top 10 prospects: 71.9" 182"

Obviously the kids will get heavier as they become men, but the Flames are a small team that is getting smaller. Spending the most important draft pick of the rebuild so far on another smurf would be a choice.

Doing it for McKenna is one thing, because he has generational talent, but doing so for a C, when there are other choices that may be as good or better, is a different matter

Here’s my hot take:

I’d bet good money on Bjorck being in talks for #1 overall and generational talent if he played in the CHL rather than in Europe.
The kids put up nothing but records in Sweden, the likes we’ve yet to see from any Swedish born player.

I’d argue he may be the top center prospect, but I’ve been watching Bjorck for a few years now and am very high on his skill set.


Lucas Raymond was 5’10 - 168 when he was drafted and is/was far less physical than Bjorck has been at the same age. I’d be more worried if he played a very perimeter/shy from hits style but he simply doesn’t. For me the high end skill is too much to pass up.

[fotze2]

If we get Bjork do we calll him big time sensuality?

[ForeverFlameFan]

Bjork more than makes up for the “size” issues that keep getting brought up.

Crosby isn’t even 6’0. Yet, he is one of the toughest players to knock off the puck. I am not going to discount Bjork because he isn’t 72 inches tall. If he was, then he’s likely competing for a top 2 spot. Could be a great consolation pick if we don’t land top 2.

[1qqaaz]

Normally I prefer skill, ceiling, and results (strong stats), because I don't like to project based on things that aren't there.

But barring a top 2 pick, this would probably be the year to get some size. Centers and defensemen in particular should have some meat on them.
Even for wingers, good power forwards can be difficult to acquire via trade (at least at reasonable prices).

I don't think Lawrence and Malhotra will be good value picks. They'll probably go higher than they should because of teams having positional needs.
Björck seems fine, but I'm hoping the Flames are picking top 4 - above the range where Björck should go.

[Enoch Root]

Size isn't an individual player issue, it's a team issue. And the Flames have a serious size problem. They have done a great job of restocking the cupboards by taking smaller guys in the draft that other teams have been overlooking, but you can't keep doing that forever. You have to get some quality players with size.

If you think Bjorck is generational, and the best player in the draft, you take him (like the argument for McKenna). Otherwise, when you're talking about players in tiers, you have to think about team construction, you can't just keep drafting smaller players.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by dammage79

You uh, wrote it yourself Bjorck plays bigger than his size. So why is the size thing so important in this conversation specifically related to Bjorck vs Malhotra. You also said he's built like a fir hydrant I believe.

5'10" to 6ft is all the same to me. Not too small for the NHL .


Elias Pettersson is 6'2 and plays as soft as baby poo. What's the argument here.

The old Stallone proverb relates here:

It's not the size of the dog in the fight

It's the size of the fight in the dog. And there's not a single player in the top half of this draft that overrides Bjorck in the department

In the eyes of scouts, there’s a difference between 6’0” and 5’9” ( that’s Bjorck’s height according to CS). You’re right, Bjorck is built like a fire hydrant, has a sky-high compete, and works hard in battles, but his win-rate in the NHL would be much higher if he were even 6’0”. My brother and I are virtually indistinguishable as far as our build, but I’m six feet tall, and he’s 5’10”, and I would bowl him over every day of the week. Bjorck’s lack of size is still a detriment, but not nearly as much of a detriment when compared to other players of his size.

[Sandman]

There is absolutely no problem with having a few small players in the lineup, but you’d better surround them with some beef.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Sandman

In the eyes of scouts, there’s a difference between 6’0” and 5’9” ( that’s Bjorck’s height according to CS). You’re right, Bjorck is built like a fire hydrant, has a sky-high compete, and works hard in battles, but his win-rate in the NHL would be much higher if he were even 6’0”. My brother and I are virtually indistinguishable as far as our build, but I’m six feet tall, and he’s 5’10”, and I would bowl him over every day of the week. Bjorck’s lack of size is still a detriment, but not nearly as much of a detriment when compared to other players of his size.

I think for two-way defensemen in particular, height helps quite a bit.
The size can help with puck battles. The longer strides help with skating and endurance. Also less likely to lose the puck when making zone entries.
Potentially more durable as well.

With that said, they seems to be diminishing returns for players that are taller than 6'4". Beyond that, some players tend to be slower and more injury prone.