The final pick is in, mercifully concluding the 2025 NHL Draft. For the 26 teams who opted for a decentralized format – consider your draft planning graded with a definitive ‘Z’. Let’s promptly return to a central location next year. Despite the unconventional setup, every NHL franchise earned a draft grade, regardless of the number of players they selected. This analysis delves into the perceived value each team extracted from their picks, evaluating talent acquired against draft position, organizational needs, and overall strategy.
Understanding these grades requires looking beyond simply drafting highly-touted players. A team with multiple early picks might receive a lower grade if they bypassed superior talent to address specific needs, while a team with fewer selections could score higher by consistently finding value and projectable NHL talent with each choice. Our assessment weighs selections against reasonable expectations based on player rankings, team requirements, and trade scenarios that shaped draft capital. Reaching for a player when higher-value options remain available will negatively impact a grade, especially for teams drafting early due to poor previous season performance or those acquiring multiple first-round picks in trades designed to accelerate a retool or rebuild. Trades influencing draft capital are considered, acknowledging teams strategically moving down or acquiring assets like established NHL players who align with their competitive window.
Grading the 2025 NHL Draft Classes
Teams approached the 2025 draft with varying strategies. Some prioritized high-end skill, others focused on size and physicality, and several aimed to bolster specific positional weaknesses. Based on the value captured and the perceived future impact of their selections, here’s how each team stacked up.
Elite Performance: ‘A+’ Grades
New York Islanders:
Grade: A+
Key Picks: Matthew Schaefer (D, 1st Overall), Victor Eklund (RW, 1st, 16th Overall), Kashawn Aitcheson (D, 1st, 17th Overall), Daniil Prokhorov (RW, 2nd, 42nd Overall)
The Islanders earned a top mark primarily for a phenomenal Day 1 performance. Selecting Matthew Schaefer first overall brings a potential franchise defenseman with leadership qualities. Crucially, their strategic trade of Noah Dobson’s signing rights yielded assets used to acquire falling talent like Victor Eklund, a winger with top-six upside, and Kashawn Aitcheson, a physical defender praised by some as a potential middle-pair cornerstone with offensive hints. The team avoided overthinking their early picks, consistently choosing quality players who project confidently into significant roles. Day 2 saw GM Mathieu Darche continue adding projectable NHL talent, including high-upside power forward Daniil Prokhorov and a reliable middle-six center in Luca Romano. This draft could genuinely be franchise-altering for the Islanders.
Philadelphia Flyers:
Grade: A+
Key Picks: Porter Martone (RW, 1st, 6th Overall), Jack Nesbitt (C, 1st, 12th Overall), Carter Amico (D, 2nd, 38th Overall), Jack Murtagh (LW, 2nd, 40th Overall)
The Flyers made their intentions clear: get bigger and tougher. Despite needing a center and passing on James Hagens, securing Porter Martone at No. 6 was excellent value, seen by some as the draft’s best winger with superstar power forward potential if his skating improves. While trading up for Jack Nesbitt at No. 12 was questioned for bypassing higher-rated players and losing pick value, Nesbitt is seen as a solid third-line center project. Day 2 picks like Carter Amico (great value due to injury), Jack Murtagh, Shane Vansaghi, and Matthew Gard reinforced this focus on size and competitive intensity. The Flyers certainly added significant physicality and depth, even if some perceived talent was left on the board in favor of size.
San Jose Sharks:
Grade: A+
Key Picks: Michael Misa (C, 1st, 2nd Overall), Joshua Ravensbergen (G, 1st, 30th Overall), Simon Wang (D, 2nd, 33rd Overall), Cole McKinney (C, 2nd, 53rd Overall)
Adding potentially the draft’s best forward in Michael Misa and the consensus top goaltender in Joshua Ravensbergen provides a foundation for an elite grade. Misa is viewed as a dynamic, high-IQ center with star potential to complement their existing young core. Ravensbergen offers a high-upside goaltending prospect who could become a starter or valuable trade asset. The selection of Simon Wang at No. 33, the highest-drafted Chinese-born player, was praised by some for his raw tools, elite skating, and massive frame, offering significant upside on defense. Cole McKinney at No. 53 was considered great value, providing a reliable two-way center with potential for more offense. The Sharks significantly deepened their prospect pool with high-impact players.
Strong Classes: ‘A’ Grades
Boston Bruins:
Grade: A
Key Picks: James Hagens (C, 1st, 7th Overall), William Moore (C, 2nd, 51st Overall), Liam Pettersson (D, 2nd, 61st Overall)
The Bruins capitalized on a draft board surprise, landing James Hagens, seen by many as a top-three talent, at No. 7. Hagens, a phenomenal playmaker, addresses a long-standing need for a top-line center and is considered one of the draft’s most valuable picks. Following up with value selections like William Moore (potential third-line center) and Cooper Simpson (potential bottom-six winger) added depth with legitimate NHL upside. The Bruins have a strong chance of getting four NHL players from this class, anchored by a potential star center.
Carolina Hurricanes:
Grade: A
Key Picks: Semyon Frolov (G, 2nd, 41st Overall), Charlie Cerrato (C, 2nd, 49th Overall), Ivan Ryabkin (C, 2nd, 62nd Overall), Kurban Limatov (D, 3rd, 67th Overall)
Consistently strong in drafting, the Hurricanes again demonstrated excellent value extraction. A savvy trade back with Montreal provided picks used to land Semyon Frolov, a goaltender with 1B potential, and Charlie Cerrato, an overage center with a high probability of reaching the NHL in a bottom-six role. Ivan Ryabkin (perceived top-five talent who fell) and Kurban Limatov also offered significant value at their spots with legitimate NHL paths. Late-round swings on skilled wingers like Filip Ekberg and Viggo Nordlund provided high boom-or-bust upside. Carolina continues to find talent throughout the draft board.
San Jose Sharks: (Note: Original article listed Sharks here and A+. Reconciled with summaries putting them at A+, but they are strong enough to mention in A tier context as well based on varied sources, but will focus analysis on the A+ section above as it’s the highest grade.)
Solid Classes: ‘A-‘ Grades
Several teams received ‘A-‘ grades for effectively balancing value and organizational needs:
Anaheim Ducks: Strong value with Roger McQueen at No. 10 (top-five talent potential). Added size and skill. Effectively traded John Gibson.
Calgary Flames: Addressed center needs with value picks like Cole Reschny and Cullen Potter. Balanced skilled and large players.
Detroit Red Wings: Acquired immediate help with the John Gibson trade alongside securing projectable NHLers like Carter Bear and Eddie Genborg. Good value throughout their picks.
Nashville Predators: Landed high-end talent (Brady Martin, Ryker Lee, Cameron Reid) and high-upside depth (Jacob Rombach, Jack Ivankovic), although some analysts questioned passing on Hagens/Martone at No. 5.
Seattle Kraken: Focused on quality with high-value picks in Jake O’Brien (playmaking center) and Blake Fiddler (first-round talent defender in Round 2). Strengthened their prospect pool significantly.
Winnipeg Jets: Addressed defensive needs with Sascha Boumedienne and found high-value skilled players like Viktor Klingsell in later rounds. Effectively improved their prospect pool with good value picks.
Mixed Results and Developmental Challenges: ‘B’ and ‘C’ Tiers
The majority of teams fell into the ‘B’ and ‘C’ tiers, indicating drafts that had positive elements but also raised questions about value, strategy, or future projection.
Good Value & Calculated Risks: ‘B+’ Grades
Chicago Blackhawks:
Grade: B+
Key Picks: Anton Frondell (C, 1st, 3rd Overall), Vaclav Nestrasil (RW, 1st, 25th Overall), Mason West (C, 1st, 29th Overall)
Chicago explicitly targeted big, athletic forwards. While taking Anton Frondell at No. 3 over Hagens prioritized size over perceived best available talent, he projects as a potential top-line forward. Vaclav Nestrasil and Mason West were seen as high-upside, raw projects drafted slightly early, but their size and unique tools make them intriguing bets for potential middle-six roles, albeit requiring significant development. The draft class is challenging for their development staff but could yield multiple NHL players.
Montreal Canadiens:
Grade: B+
Key Picks: Alexander Zharovsky (RW, 2nd, 34th Overall), Hayden Paupanekis (C, 3rd, 69th Overall), L.J. Mooney (C, 4th, 113th Overall)
Montreal’s grade is complex due to their trade acquiring Noah Dobson for assets that became Islander picks (Eklund, Aitcheson). While Dobson fits their timeline, the price was high. They paid a premium for Alexander Zharovsky early in Round 2, but he is a talented offensive winger. They found excellent value and potential upside in the middle rounds with players like Hayden Paupanekis (pragmatic three-zone center) and L.J. Mooney (undersized, highly competitive, skilled winger). Despite parting with valuable assets, they added several prospects with legitimate NHL potential.
Ottawa Senators:
Grade: B+
Key Picks: Logan Hensler (D, 1st, 23rd Overall), Lucas Beckman (G, 4th, 97th Overall)
Ottawa demonstrated strong asset management by trading back and acquiring Jordan Spence, while still landing Logan Hensler at No. 23, a right-shot defenseman with size, mobility, and the tools to complement Jake Sanderson. Addressing their goaltending depth with a swing on Lucas Beckman made sense. Overall, the Senators had a banner first night and made worthwhile bets later on.
Washington Capitals:
Grade: B+
Key Picks: Lynden Lakovic (LW, 1st, 27th Overall), Milton Gastrin (C, 2nd, 37th Overall), Maxim Schafer (LW, 3rd, 96th Overall)
The Capitals secured excellent value with their initial picks. Lynden Lakovic at No. 27 offers top-15 upside as a big, dual-threat forward if he can improve his physical engagement. Milton Gastrin is a mature, complete three-zone center with a strong chance of becoming a reliable third-liner. Maxim Schafer provided good value in the third round. They landed at least two players likely to impact their lineup.
Fine, But Uninspiring: ‘B’ Grades
Los Angeles Kings: A fine draft class lacking standout excitement but avoiding disappointment. Secured some value with later picks like Jimmy Lombardi (play-driving center) and Kristian Epperson (overage scorer). Henry Brzustewicz at No. 31 was considered slightly early by some.
Minnesota Wild: Made good value selections with limited picks. Theodor Hallquisth offers puck-moving potential on defense. Adam Benak, though undersized, was a high-skill, high-IQ steal in the fourth round with top-six upside if he grows.
New Jersey Devils: A mixed bag including good value picks (Ben Kevan, Conrad Fondrk) with potential top-nine upside, alongside some head-scratchers. Did well given their draft capital.
Pittsburgh Penguins: Took big swings in the first round, questioned by some for reaches (Benjamin Kindel, Will Horcoff), though all first-rounders project as potential NHLers. Trading down for a third first-round pick was good strategy but value was arguably left on the board. Found good value in later rounds (Charlie Trethewey, Peyton Kettles).
Utah Mammoth: understandable pick of Caleb Desnoyers at No. 4 (safe, two-way center). Found value with Max Psenicka (physical shutdown D) in the second. Their first two picks should be solid NHLers.
Vegas Golden Knights: Despite limited picks, found good value in Jakob Ihs Wozniak (high-upside shooter) and Mateo Nobert (complementary offensive player).
Questionable Strategy & Reaches: ‘B-‘ Grades
Columbus Blue Jackets: Found great value in defender Jackson Smith (potential second-best D in the class) at No. 14. However, selecting goalie Pyotr Andreyanov at No. 20 when he could have been taken later was questioned.
Dallas Stars: Excelling despite few picks is a Dallas trademark. Cameron Schmidt, a potent scorer despite size, was a huge value steal in the third round, reminiscent of Logan Stankoven. Later picks were less notable.
St. Louis Blues: Found good value with Justin Carbonneau (high-upside power forward) in the first round. Mikhail Fyodorov was a reasonable late-round swing. Did well with limited picks.
Vancouver Canucks: A ‘fine’ draft. Took Braeden Cootes (solid middle-six center) slightly high but addressed a need. Aleksei Medvedev offers goaltending depth. Made reasonable upside bets later but left value on the board.
Difficult Drafts: ‘C’ Tiers
Buffalo Sabres: Focused on size and physicality, departing from previous drafts. Radim Mrtka (big defender) was a bit of a reach at No. 9. David Bedkowski adds physicality later. Might only yield two NHLers from this class.
Edmonton Oilers: Given few picks, took reasonable swings on players like Tommy Lafreniere and David Lewandowski, who could become depth scorers. However, failing to acquire immediate goaltending help (like John Gibson) to address a significant need during their contention window weighed down the grade.
New York Rangers: Grade heavily relies on Malcolm Spence, a good value second-round pick with potential middle-six impact. Sean Barnhill was a fine but slightly high pick. Left value on the board elsewhere.
Tampa Bay Lightning: Not a high-upside draft class. Ethan Czata is a good value pick with potential as a third-line mucker. Benjamin Rautiainen is a reasonable late-round bet on scoring skill. Most players project as high-end AHLers at best.
Low Yield & Missed Opportunity: ‘D’ Tiers
Florida Panthers:
Grade: D+
Key Picks: Shamar Moses (RW, 5th, 129th Overall), Mads Kongsbak Klyvo (LW, 4th, 112th Overall)
Winning back-to-back Stanley Cups severely limits draft capital. The Panthers had few picks, mostly in later rounds. While Shamar Moses offers some value and an outside chance at a depth NHL role, it’s unlikely this class yields multiple NHL players. The grade reflects the reality of their draft position and limited opportunities.
Colorado Avalanche:
Grade: D
Key Picks: Francesco Dell’elce (D, 3rd, 77th Overall), Linus Funck (D, 4th, 118th Overall)
With limited picks, the Avalanche’s selections didn’t offer high NHL projection. Some felt talent was left on the board at each pick. Francesco Dell’Elce, as an overager, has a shorter development runway. Given their contention window, the Avs needed to hit on higher-upside swings with their few opportunities, which didn’t appear to happen.
Toronto Maple Leafs:
Grade: D
Key Picks: Tinus Luc Koblar (C, 2nd, 64th Overall), Tyler Hopkins (C, 3rd, 86th Overall), William Belle (RW, 5th, 137th Overall)
Under GM Brad Treliving, the Leafs prioritized size, often bypassing more skilled players with higher upside. Tinus Luc Koblar felt like a reach at No. 64 despite intriguing physical tools. While Tyler Hopkins offers potential as a depth center, many selections were raw players whose best attribute was size. Leaving legitimate NHL upside players like Behm, Limatov, Trethewey, Mooney, and Schmidt on the board felt strategic but detrimental to draft value, potentially yielding only one depth NHLer from the entire class.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the main criteria used to grade the 2025 NHL Draft classes?
Grades were determined by evaluating the value teams extracted with their selections. This included assessing whether teams picked players higher or lower than their perceived talent level, how well picks addressed organizational needs, the overall upside of the drafted prospects, and the impact of trades that affected a team’s draft capital. Extracting significant value with each pick, even with fewer selections, could lead to a higher grade than teams that reached on players despite having more opportunities.
Which teams received the highest grades in the 2025 NHL Draft analysis?
The New York Islanders, Philadelphia Flyers, and San Jose Sharks were awarded ‘A+’ grades. The Islanders excelled with high-value picks in the first round, notably Matthew Schaefer and leveraging trade assets for Victor Eklund and Kashawn Aitcheson. The Flyers aggressively drafted size and toughness, with Porter Martone seen as a high-upside steal at No. 6. The Sharks secured top talents in Michael Misa and Joshua Ravensbergen, alongside intriguing defensive prospects.
Why did some teams like the Toronto Maple Leafs receive lower draft grades?
Teams like the Toronto Maple Leafs received lower grades primarily due to perceived strategic choices that left significant value on the board. While Toronto prioritized drafting size to fit a desired organizational identity under GM Treliving, analysts felt they bypassed players with higher skill, upside, and better chances of becoming impact NHLers in favor of raw, large prospects. This perceived deviation from drafting the “best available” talent negatively impacted their grade, as it limited the likely number of NHL players produced by their draft class.
Conclusion
The 2025 NHL Draft, despite its decentralized format and debates around the top-end talent pool, provided plenty of intrigue. Teams employed diverse strategies, leading to a wide range of outcomes in their initial grades. From the Islanders, Flyers, and Sharks earning top marks for high-value and high-upside selections to teams like the Maple Leafs facing criticism for prioritizing specific attributes over perceived best available talent, the draft offered a snapshot of each organization’s vision for the future. These grades represent a preliminary assessment; ultimately, the success of a draft class will be measured years down the line by how many players make it to the NHL and the impact they have.