As the NHL draft approaches, Gavin McKenna has emerged as the Toronto Maple Leafs’ most compelling option at No. 1 overall—praised for elite hockey IQ, elite chance creation, and a college-and-WHL development path that tested him in new environments.
The NHL draft clock is getting louder, and for the Toronto Maple Leafs, the question at No. 1 overall has narrowed to one name in the loudest way: Gavin McKenna.
What makes the debate feel different this time isn’t just who’s being discussed. It’s the idea that the Maple Leafs front office is considering everything—Is it Ivar Stenberg. Chase Reid. Caleb Malhotra. Keaton Verhoeff. Carson Carels?. Or is it trading the pick, and finding a different path entirely?.
In that swirl, McKenna is being pushed forward with a simple argument: if you’re evaluating the Leafs’ No. 1 decision, you start with the hardest skill to buy in hockey—scoring—and you draft the player best built to create it.
The pitch for McKenna starts with a blunt admission. He’s not a perfect player. He isn’t physical, and if the game doesn’t come his way, he can sometimes go quiet without obvious impact.
But the standard, as it’s framed here, isn’t “perfection.” It’s two questions—“Is he the best in the draft?” and “How can he help the Leafs?”
Scoring is still the hardest thing to do in hockey. and McKenna is described as better than any available player in the draft at creating offence—chance creation built around his hockey IQ. vision. and passing. The reasoning is straightforward: you can’t win if you can’t create. and picking him gives Toronto a creator rather than an upside gamble that might never find the puck at the right time.
There’s also a development storyline that’s hard to dismiss. McKenna tore up the WHL to a “disgusting” degree—129 points in 56 games. Then he moved to Penn State when college hockey was still accelerating in quality. and he tested himself again in a different environment. After a stretch to adjust to the pace and start seeing lanes. he produced at a similarly punishing rate: 51 points in 35 games. second in points-per-game in the country.
The argument against that path is familiar: the suggestion that going to college “hurt his draft stock,” and that tearing up the WHL again would’ve been better for his profile.
But the counterpoint lands with the same kind of certainty: the point is to improve, not just to impress.
Supporters of other drafting approaches point to teams that win with depth and physical play—Florida and Vegas are used as examples of playoff style. Yet the comparison doesn’t fully land, because offence doesn’t stop being offence just because a team grinds. Even in the playoffs, elite production shows up with the same frequency. Nikita Kucherov is referenced with 177 points in playoffs (159 games) and two Stanley Cups. underscoring the idea that you can build winners around more than one trait.
For the Leafs, the urgency is tied to what’s happened to their power play. Toronto’s power play has shifted from first in 2021-22. to second. to seventh. to ninth. and then finally to 15th without Mitch Marner last season. Even with Marner on the roster. it’s been framed as struggling in the post-season—the kind of slump that can decide close series.
McKenna is presented as a fix from the flank, where his elite vision and passing can control a power play. The claim is that over the next handful of years, Toronto won’t be stuck on the wrong side of “league average” with the man advantage.
The same idea of hockey sense shows up in comparisons to other high-end forward brains. Vegas is cited for having three of the league’s highest “hockey IQ” forwards in Marner. Jack Eichel. and Mark Stone—players described as seeing everything. avoiding glaring “whoopsie” plays. and understanding when to retreat and when to go for it. Wins, in that telling, are what those decisions become.
McKenna’s biggest selling point is distilled to one line: his number one positive attribute is his hockey IQ—he’s portrayed as the smartest player in the draft. He’s said to control the pace of play, see all 10 skaters on the ice, and find seams that create chances for teammates.
In a Toronto context. that mental side isn’t just helpful on the ice—it’s part of why the fit is considered “built for the Toronto market.” At the NHL Draft Combine. Sportsnet interviewed McKenna. and the group hit him with the usual questions. plus a few “fastball and changeup” moments. Jason Bukala, the scouting director referenced here, is described as laying out why he has Stenberg at No. 1 and giving McKenna a chance to make his case.
The exchange is portrayed as engaging. McKenna is described as being engaged the whole way through, and then—crucially—not wavering. He’s said to have talked about competing and developing a “B-game” on off nights, being courteous and respectful, and staying unfazed.
That matters, the argument says, because in a large market he’ll be in front of cameras constantly, challenged, and asked to explain himself. The expectation is that he can.
On the criticism about his non-offensive side, the defence is again built around positioning and system fit. He’s said to be smart. to reload for his D well when defenders pinch. to be relied on as F3. and to be able to work in a system. He’s still not physical and that’s framed as a real shortcoming. but he’s not portrayed as flying the zone irresponsibly. He’s presented as aware of where to be on the ice.
The best-case scenario offered is a specific use: a player so situationally aware that you can put him on the ice up a goal in the dying minute because he reads the play well. Even if he doesn’t reach that peak defensively immediately. the view here is that he isn’t a complete defensive “flake. ” and that maturity could improve the rest.
Then there’s the off-ice piece, offered as a kind of character proof. McKenna is described as having talked about his happy place: his family cabin, four hours north of Whitehorse. The distance is emphasized to the point of imagery—remote, built on isolation.
To live and work there. the argument goes. you need resilience. you need to put in work. and you need to work with your hands. Those traits are said to translate well to professional hockey. The comparison is made to “farm boys” as an old market efficiency for the Islanders during their Cup drafts. when they were stacking strong. competent men.
The claim here is that McKenna’s background suggests a similar kind of steadiness.
Finally comes the draft-floor discussion—something every fan fixates on once the name is out there. The projected top nine or so picks are described as having upside but also the chance they fall short of expectations. That’s framed as normal for any draft.
What’s different is the confidence placed in McKenna’s “floor.” The argument says it’s hard to believe it’s very low. even while admitting the floor outcome isn’t precisely known. The view is that he can make plays that don’t fit a low ceiling. with an insistence that he can be an 80-point guy in his prime.
The points might not arrive immediately, but the claim is that he sees the game in a way that few players do, and once his feet and strength catch up to the rest of the league, the expectation is that the numbers will follow.
So yes, there are reasons Toronto might not pick him. They want a D-man. They might trade the pick. Their scouts could prefer Stenberg.
But at the end of the argument, the choice is framed as a lottery ticket—and McKenna is positioned as offering the best odds of a jackpot.
Not because he’s the safest bet on paper. Because, for a team needing more offence control and better power-play outcomes, he’s described as the rare pick who actually creates.
Gavin McKenna Toronto Maple Leafs NHL Draft No. 1 overall power play hockey IQ Penn State WHL Ivar Stenberg Mitch Marner Jason Bukala