Sharks and Leafs surge; Flyers and Golden Knights stumble

winners and – A pick-by-pick first-round review reshapes expectations across the league: the San Jose Sharks are framed as the night’s biggest winners with a premium defense-focused haul, while the Toronto Maple Leafs are praised for landing the class’s most dynamic talent.

Draft night doesn’t always feel like a verdict. Sometimes it feels like a wager placed in public—where every team insists it’s certainty, and every fan reads it like fate.

In this first-round review of the 2026 NHL Draft, the winners and losers aren’t determined by point totals or spreadsheet math. They’re judged against one standard: how each team’s class lines up with where they selected, and whether the player profiles make sense at those picks.

The author also emphasizes that the categories aren’t about “total value” in a vacuum. More picks—or higher average positions—don’t automatically mean better grades, and fewer or lower picks aren’t automatically a loss. The focus is on what each haul looks like relative to where it landed.

San Jose Sharks — No. 2: Ivar Stenberg (ranking: 2), No. 9: Keaton Verhoeff (ranking: 8), No. 21: Ryan Lin (ranking: 10)

The Sharks are framed as the biggest winners of Round 1.

The core argument is straightforward: the organization “need[s] a premium D prospect more than another premium young forward,” and it supposedly makes the right call by taking Stenberg at No. 2 and still securing a top defenseman at No. 9 with Verhoeff.

Up front, the author points to Macklin Celebrini, Michael Misa, Will Smith, and Stenberg as a foursome “that should give them a formidable power play,” plus two pairs in the top six that can “scare opposing teams.” Another like-aged forward, Igor Chernyshov, is said to round out the group.

Defensively, the young core expands again: Sam Dickinson and Verhoeff join the Sharks’ picture as top young D.

Stenberg’s profile is described with unusually specific confidence for a teenage prospect from Sweden. The author calls him one of the most accomplished teenage forwards to come out of Sweden in decades and expects him to be a front-line winger—either taking his own line away from Celebrini or serving as a “formidable running mate.” The immediate impact is part of the pitch too: Stenberg “is going to make an immediate impact as a rookie next year. ” with the author believing he can put himself “in the Calder mix.”.

Verhoeff gets a more nuanced take. The author says he’s been “a little lower” on him than most over the last two years. though the “consensus started to line up more” toward the end of Verhoeff’s freshman year at North Dakota. Even with “yellow flags” about boots and decision-making. the author still lands on a pro-ready defenseman: a summer birthday right shot with pedigree in the NCAA. WHL. and internationally with Hockey Canada. The projection offered is that his size. handedness. shot. strong overall tools. and development runway can make him “a stud defenseman. ” and the author says he still “landed him high on my board. ” even if the author slots him below Chase Reid. Alberts Šmits. and Carson Carels.

Ryan Lin is saved for last—and praised most sharply. The author calls him a favorite prospect in the class. arguing he’s “one of the smartest. most polished. and most competitive D in this class.” The pitch centers on skating and athleticism. with a forecast that he becomes an “impactful top-four intellectually puck-moving D.”.

Put together, the author’s bottom line is blunt: “The Sharks’ young core should be the envy of the league.”

Toronto Maple Leafs — No. 1: Gavin McKenna (ranking: 1)

In Toronto, the win is treated as immediate.

The author says it’s hard not to see the pick as a success: McKenna “immediately brings renewed life to Toronto,” expected to slot into the top six and top power-play unit on Day 1.

The warning comes with the promise. The author predicts “some ups and downs as a rookie” and says McKenna will need to get stronger and become more consistent and reliable off-puck. But the on-puck expectation is presented as rare and electric: a “brilliant perimeter handler and playmaker. ” with the author pointing to the idea that stars like Auston Matthews and William Nylander will quickly be “fighting to play with” him.

The Leafs, in this telling, have the top talent and the top dynamism: the author calls McKenna “the most talented and dynamic player in the class,” and one of the most talented and dynamic coming through the draft in recent years.

Vancouver Canucks — No. 3: Caleb Malhotra (ranking: 4), No. 24: Adam Novotný (ranking: 18)

The Canucks are described as getting a good start, with the author tying it to a larger patience factor: the author notes they “are going to have to linger at the top of the draft here for a couple of years.”

Malhotra is presented as someone who belonged in the top conversations of the draft. Leadership and two-way commitment are mentioned alongside the key point the author refuses to separate from talent: “don’t confuse that for a lack of talent.” The author gives high grades for Malhotra as a player driver and playmaker. citing skill. skating. hockey sense. and a frame that will keep filling out.

Novotný is described as the kind of winger who fits cleanly into a specific role—“a middle-six secondary scoring winger.” The author frames him as thickly built. strong-skating. hard-shooting. and competitive. predicting a high floor and “very high” reliability. The forecast is an almost tidy baseline: “should reliably score 20 goals per season while adding speed and strength to a lineup.”.

Seattle Kraken — No. 7: Chase Reid (ranking: 3)

Seattle’s night gets a different shape: the author says the Kraken used their first five first-round picks on forwards before finally using the sixth on a defenseman.

Here, the draft is depicted as delivering a solution. The author says it was “the draft to do it,” with a “couple of the big five D promised to still be available at No. 7.” Reid is framed as the clear fix for a “hole within Seattle’s pool.”

Reid is called “the best young defenseman the organization has had since its inception back in 2021. ” and the author’s assessment emphasizes an offensive-first style: proactive offensive defenseman. joins the rush. activates early and often. and has the skating and skill to make plays off his offensive instincts. The author also highlights defensive progress over the last year and a half. particularly given Reid’s older placement in the class.

The endgame prediction: top-pairing offensive defenseman and future power-play quarterback.

The other winners and overtime winners

Several teams are treated as solid fits—sometimes for high-upside reasons, sometimes for precise role-building.

Winnipeg Jets — No. 8: Viggo Björck (ranking: 6)

Björck is called one of the author’s favorites, framed as having answered doubts about being 5-foot-9. The author expects him to become a top-six center who makes everyone around him better, stressing smart, strong, competitive, skilled play and a game sense tailored to his age.

Nashville Predators — No. 10: Wyatt Cullen (ranking: 12), No. 31: Tommy Bleyl (ranking: 28)

Cullen is described as one of the biggest risers in the draft despite missing much of the season due to hip problems. The author highlights CHL USA Prospects Challenge and U18 worlds as proof points. then points to the growth story—Cullen is said to have moved from 5-foot-5 to 6-foot-1 during his time at the program. The author calls him a “most dynamic one-on-one players” prospect for the class with skating and handling that can break down coverage.

Bleyl becomes the other note of optimism. Despite finishing No. 28 on the author’s list. Bleyl is called someone the author “wish” ranked higher. with a key argument that his skating and thinking don’t come with the “typical risk” associated with a 5-foot-11.25 defenseman. The author expects him to become “really interesting. ” and rejects a worst-case comparison. saying some scouts worry about the Ty Smith. Ville Heinola. Victor Soderstrom scenario.

The author also links it to Nashville’s defensive identity. saying the Predators now have similarly sized D—Bleyl. Cameron Reid. and Tanner Molendyk—sharing mobility as their strongest trait. On offense. Cullen and Ryker Lee are described as “two of the most purely individually gifted teenage wingers in the game.”.

Calgary Flames — No. 6: Carson Carels (ranking: 7), No. 30: Jack Hextall (ranking: 26)

Carels is described as the consensus No. 2 D at year’s end and top-ranked D on several team lists. The author emphasizes a hard, competitive, minute-eating two-way defenseman profile, with more offense than expected, plus shooting and playmaking. The author calls Carels a “hand-to-glove fit” in Calgary opposite right-handed puck offensive tilt guys: Šimon Nemec and Zayne Parekh.

Hextall is treated as a pro-styled strong-on-pucks player who projects as a complete 200-foot center, with fair questions about ultimate offense but an optimistic view of his overall readiness.

Los Angeles Kings — No. 19: Elton Hermansson (ranking: 15)

Hermansson is praised as a separator with one-on-one ability. The author frames a concern about engagement off the puck, but still predicts top-six and power-play skill. The author also says Hermansson’s shot can finish offensive-zone flashes. and the author claims that players with that kind of talent usually aren’t available in the second half of the first round.

New York Rangers — No. 5: Alberts Šmits (ranking: 5)

Šmits is framed as the “most NHL-ready defenseman in the draft.” The author points to his proven experience against pro competition in Finland and Germany. and competition at the Olympics and men’s worlds for Latvia. He’s described as big. strong. competitive. instinctual. and two-way. with a projection that he’ll play all situations for a long time.

St. Louis Blues — No. 11: Tynan Lawrence (ranking: 11), No. 16: Maddox Dagenais (ranking: 35)

Lawrence is explained through disruption. The author says Lawrence began the year as the top-ranked center in the class after a Clark Cup MVP as a 16-year-old. then injuries—foot and ankle—disrupted the start of his draft year. He then lost his pole position as top pivot when his second-half jump moved him to Boston University. The author acknowledges a tendency to tunnel-vision with the puck, but stresses his likability, speed, and hardworking, committed game. The forecast: second-line center and a chance to prove he’s still top in his first full season of college hockey next year.

Dagenais is positioned as a good-sized. good-skating. good-skill forward. listed as a center but with some viewing him as more of a winger. The author mentions physical edge and frames concussions and inconsistencies as factors that can pull him toward middle-six. Still, the author says he has the tools required to play in the NHL.

Detroit Red Wings — No. 23: JP Hurlbert (ranking: 20)

Hurlbert’s standout is production in the WHL: the author says he finished as fourth-leading scorer, breaking the 40-goal mark and nearly reaching 100 points. The author expects him as a second-line winger with legit skill and hockey sense, and notes that speed and pace could make a big difference.

New York Islanders — No. 13: Malte Gustafsson (ranking: 14)

Gustafsson is described as big. mobile. competitive. and effective on defense. with the author projecting a long career playing 20 minutes per game. The author says he didn’t think Gustafsson had enough offense to rank with the other top five D. but places him at the front of the next tier anyway. citing puck control and willingness to play an active offensive style. The author also addresses left-shot abundance—the Islanders have Gustafsson. Matthew Schaefer. Kashawn Aitcheson. Alexander Romanov. and more—and says there’s “no issue” with taking him here.

The overtime losers

Buffalo Sabres — No. 4: Daxon Rudolph (ranking: 9), No. 20: Ilia Morozov (ranking: 24)

Rudolph’s profile is outlined as big and skilled: 6-foot-2.5. 200-plus-pound right-shot defenseman with an NHL shot and offensive playmaking sense. The author calls out a tremendous regular season and postseason with Prince Albert. The critique isn’t about his ceiling so much as limitations in style: the author says he’s not the best skater or hardest of the bunch. Still, the author places him as an “high-end D prospect” who projects to produce points.

Morozov is framed more conservatively. The author calls him a safe bet to become a solid third-line center. describing him as strongly built and two-way. but also “high-floor. low-ceiling”—a “bunt single” rather than a home run. The author also says they knew. based on intel gathered ahead of the draft. that Morozov would go in front of some players the author would have swung on first.

The author admits the Sabres had paths that might have excited them more, but concludes they still picked two good players.

New Jersey Devils — No. 12: Alexander Command (ranking: 19)

Command becomes an early riser story. The author says he became the de facto No. 4 center in the class for most teams by year’s end and was No. 3 ahead of Lawrence for a few. The projection is a long. well-paid career as a middle-six center with strength-on-pucks. firm stance. pro contact skills. and ability to play with skill players and hold possession. Still, the author wonders if his production will justify how early he was taken.

Columbus Blue Jackets — No. 14: Oscar Hemming (ranking: 17)

Hemming is described as a naturally strong. naturally competitive. naturally driven winger in a power forward mold. with room to bulk up. The author isn’t convinced there’s clear top-six skill. placing him to late teens rather than early teams on the author’s list. The expectation: up-and-down-the-lineup type with a unique makeup—no “sexy pick,” but a functional fit.

Pittsburgh Penguins — No. 22: Liam Ruck (ranking: 29)

Liam Ruck is framed as widely viewed as the better of the Ruck twins. and the author says it wasn’t a surprise to see him be the first taken. The author also provides numbers that are part of the unease: the author points to 53 goals and 116 points in 82 combined regular-season and playoff games this year. but says his first-round selection wasn’t promised even with those totals. Concerns center on build and skating: slight builds and below-average skating. plus some teams not being able to match the desire to play together. The author says he felt Liam belonged as a late first. and calls the label “overtime losers” maybe unfair because there is upside and the swing is respected.

Washington Capitals — No. 18: Oliver Suvanto (ranking: 25)

Suvanto is described as likely to have a long career as a bottom-six center, but the author says the offense is uninspiring. The author concludes the pick is “uninspiring and cautious,” even while acknowledging it gets the center the Capitals were looking for.

Montreal Canadiens — No. 26: Gleb Pugachyov (ranking: 38)

The author leans on combine measurement and the resulting draft chatter. Pugachyov is said to have been officially measured at 6-foot-3 at Gold Star’s pre-draft camp/combine. and teams felt better about him as a first-rounder after the measurement. The author calls him a big. strong. athletic. pro-built winger projecting as a third-liner. with some teams believing he could be up-and-down and become an important third-wheel on a top-six line long term. The author says they haven’t seen enough offense to believe that latter outcome and warns that if he’s only a competitive bottom-sixer. the value could be left on the table.

The losers: where risk feels highest

Philadelphia Flyers — No. 27: Maksim Sokolovskii (ranking: 73)

The Flyers’ first-round pick stands out as the most dramatic grade gap in this review: Sokolovskii ranked at 73 by the author, despite NHL teams showing fascination this season.

The author lists why: a hulking and athletic build. decent mobility. natural physicality. lack of experience. and a noticeable step forward after a difficult first-half adjustment to life in the OHL. The author says teams look to Nikita Zadorov (London Knight drafted 16th) and Logan Stanley (OHL drafted 18th) as models. believing Sokolovskii could be the next player in that mold.

But the author’s skepticism is about the rawness timeline. The author says Sokolovskii is “rawer than those two were at the same age. ” which creates a wider range of outcomes. Even if he hits. the author argues it’s not a home run for a first-round pick: those examples are described as “solid outcomes” rather than “home runs.” The final reason is blunt: if it doesn’t come “between the ears. ” there’s bust potential. The author adds that the calculation would have felt more comfortable if made in the second round rather than the first.

Ottawa Senators — No. 25: Jonas Lagerberg Hoen (ranking: 60), No. 32: Jaxon Cover (ranking: 49)

Ottawa’s pair of swings gets a risk critique tied to development timelines.

The author says they liked the Senators prioritizing skill and taking swings. but felt the risk calculus was early on both players. The concerns are specific to their exposure to the game: Jonas Lagerberg Hoen is said to not have started playing hockey until five years ago. while Jaxon Cover hardly played at all in his draft year. The author frames both picks as development bets.

Cover is called “the story of this draft” for the author—fascinating given limited development time pre-draft alongside “legitimate hands and shot.” Still. the author says the lack of time spent on the ice compared to peers means there’s definite projection risk. and that the learning of the game still has to catch up. The author’s personal threshold for making that gamble would have been the second round instead of the first. even though the author says they’re “thrilled for him.”.

Vegas Golden Knights — No. 29: Juho Piiparinen (ranking: 39)

Piiparinen’s selection is framed as a momentum carry-over from Hlinka confidence.

The author says Piiparinen was viewed as a sure first-round pick coming out of the Hlinka last summer. and once teams get high on a player it can persist—even if the author believes Piiparinen’s actual season didn’t look that way. There was “always a real chance” in the back half of the first round that a team valued the summer-birthday righty who can skate and has held his own against men.

The author’s critique is less about tools and more about spark: the author says Piiparinen is “incredibly vanilla,” and predicts third-pairing D.

Where the draft lands now

This review paints a first round split between teams that filled needs—or made a bet that still fits their draft position—and teams the author views as leaning too hard into risk.

The Sharks’ multi-pronged young core is presented as the clearest triumph. with defense at the center of the story and multiple picks framed as coherent for the roster they already have. The Maple Leafs’ early pivot to Gavin McKenna is presented as a talent-first move that brings an immediate offensive identity.

Meanwhile. Philadelphia’s choice of Maksim Sokolovskii is treated as the most extreme mismatch between draft slot and projected risk. while Ottawa’s picks for Jonas Lagerberg Hoen and Jaxon Cover are questioned through development-time math. Vegas’s Juho Piiparinen is criticized as a player whose draft momentum may outpace what the season showed.

For readers, the numbers in this piece aren’t just rankings. They’re a map of belief—where one team sees fit, another sees upside, and a few see gamble that might be paid back later, or not at all.

2026 NHL Draft first round San Jose Sharks Toronto Maple Leafs Gavin McKenna Ivar Stenberg Keaton Verhoeff Ryan Lin Chase Reid Viggo Björck Wyatt Cullen Tommy Bleyl Philadelphia Flyers Maksim Sokolovskii Ottawa Senators Jonas Lagerberg Hoen Jaxon Cover Vegas Golden Knights Juho Piiparinen