Anton Wilde
2026/04/24 vs USA (0–2)
Wilde delivered an outstanding performance, stopping 54 shots and giving Denmark a chance
to compete until the final whistle. What stood out most was his game management. He
remained calm and composed against a high-powered USA offense that generated sustained
pressure throughout the game. Coming off a strong first start against Germany, his confidence
was evident. He kept his game simple and controlled, relying on excellent patience on his edges
and sound positioning. He consistently arrived set and square to shooters, making it difficult for
the USA to catch him off guard. His rebound control was also a key factor, slowing the pace in
the defensive zone and allowing his defenders to reset. Performances like this against top-tier
competition will draw attention from NHL scouts. At this point, a draft selection in June is firmly
in play.

Brady Knowling
2026/04/22 vs Czechia (2–3 OT)
Knowling remains a difficult evaluation. From a mechanics and fundamentals standpoint, he
looks like a high-end prospect. His mobility is strong and his post integrations are well
executed.However, a deeper look reveals technical inconsistencies that were evident in this
game. His hands lack activity, particularly his glove hand, which is often positioned downward
rather than presented to the puck. On recoveries, excessive movement put him out of position,
directly contributing to goals against.In one sequence, he completely lost track of the play and
turned away from the puck, which is concerning. While his foundation suggests he will still be
drafted relatively high, these flaws could cause him to slide compared to initial expectations.

Marek Sklenička
2026/04/22 vs USA (3–2 OT)
A solid and composed performance from Sklenička against the USA. He started the game
confidently, making several strong glove saves early on. He combines size with athletic upside
and moves efficiently. He understands how to position his body effectively, allowing him to make
saves without overcomplicating situations. There were a couple of lapses in focus on the goals
against, but he responded well and remained steady for the rest of the game. Sklenička is
trending in the right direction and projects comfortably as a mid-round selection, likely in the
third or fourth round.

Patriks Plūmiņš
2026/04/26 vs Norway (8–1)

A quiet game in terms of shot quality, but Plūmiņš still stopped 24 shots. This performance
highlighted both his upside and his rawness.He is highly athletic, particularly in his lower body.
His flexibility allows him to widen his stance and seal the ice effectively, and he can generate
strong power to cover larger distances.His upper body remains more rigid, especially his hands,
which contribute to an overly compact stance at times. However, in the butterfly, he maximizes
his size effectively, especially when sealing the post in RVH.Edge control and movement
efficiency need refinement. Overmovement was noticeable at times and could become an issue
at higher levels. Overall, he profiles as an intriguing development pick with significant upside.

Patriks Plūmiņš
2026/04/24 vs Finland (0–2)
Another strong showing from Plūmiņš, stopping 32 of 34 shots. His athletic base was again
evident, allowing him to cover large areas of the net, particularly when sealing the post or
extending in the butterfly.His puck tracking was generally solid, with only minor rebound control
issues. However, his skating and edge work still need improvement. He can appear stuck on his
edges, which limits his lateral mobility and delays reactions on cross-crease
plays.Performances like this against stronger competition will positively impact his draft stock.

Patriks Plūmiņš
2026/04/29 vs USA (5–2)
Plūmiņš was the standout performer of the tournament for Latvia, with this quarterfinal win over
the USA being the highlight. He stopped 48 shots in a high-pressure game where the USA
consistently tried to disrupt him with traffic and physical play.He remained composed and
confident throughout. His puck tracking was excellent, seeing pucks cleanly through traffic and
reacting quickly to releases. His hands were decisive, either absorbing or directing pucks
effectively, with very few dangerous rebounds. The main concern remains his structure on
extended recoveries. In some sequences, he lost balance and ended up on his back or seated,
which could limit his ability to handle second chances.If he was not firmly on draft boards before
this tournament, he should be now. A mid-round selection appears very realistic.

Martin Psohlavec
2026/04/23 vs Sweden (2–1)
A strong and composed performance from Psohlavec. His engagement level stood out
immediately.
He was active in his crease, challenging shooters with controlled aggressiveness and moving
decisively. He also communicated well with his defenders, acting as an additional layer of

awareness through frequent shoulder checks. His willingness to play the puck was also notable,
helping breakouts and reducing forecheck pressure. Technically, his puck tracking was solid,
and rebound control was effective. He stayed connected to plays and reacted quickly on
recoveries. With his physical tools and mature approach, performances like this will keep him
firmly in the draft conversation.

Pyry Lammi
2026/04/27 vs Canada (0–7)
A very difficult game for Lammi against Canada. While his speed and athleticism were still
present, he struggled in most other areas. He looked overwhelmed by sustained pressure,
frequently losing sight of the puck and breaking down structurally on passing plays and
rebounds. His puck tracking was inconsistent, and he was beaten cleanly on multiple shots. His
play recognition and recoveries were also problematic. After goals, he appeared disoriented,
suggesting difficulty processing the sequences. Given his smaller stature, these issues are
magnified. This performance could negatively impact his draft projection.

Pyry Lammi
2026/04/24 vs Latvia (2–0)
Despite the shutout, some concerns remained. Lammi plays a reactive style rather than an
anticipatory one. He often reacted to plays without gathering information beforehand, leading to
suboptimal positioning. On one short-side rush, he defaulted to RVH despite no passing threat,
when an overlap would have provided better coverage. These details are critical, especially for
a smaller goalie. While the result was positive, the underlying habits raise questions about his
projection. He could fall outside the draft range.

Luke Carrithers
2026/04/27 vs Germany (11–1)
Carrithers is a clean and efficient goalie with a solid foundation. He moves well, stays controlled,
and positions himself effectively. His compact stance limits openings and helps him absorb
pucks efficiently. He compensates for that compactness with strong depth management.
However, puck tracking through screens remains an issue. On multiple occasions, he lost sight
of the puck and struggled to recover, leading to goals. Overall, he does many things well but
lacks a defining elite trait. He projects as a potential late-round pick or could go undrafted.

Samuel Hrenák

2026/04/27 vs Latvia (5–2)
Hrenák continues to trend upward. He is a big-bodied goalie with strong lower-body power.
Compared to earlier in the season, his movements were more controlled and purposeful. He
used intelligent routes and showed improved patience on his edges, leading to better
positioning. His post play was effective, sealing well in RVH while also using the post to
generate power for pushes. His hands were solid when set, but became less controlled during
lateral movement, particularly his glove hand. There is clear upside in his profile, and a mid-
round selection appears likely.

Gavin Betts
2026/04/22 vs Slovakia (1–2)
A solid performance despite the result. Betts’ biggest strength is his positioning and depth
management. He adjusted well to play development and managed his aggressiveness
appropriately. His stick work was effective in directing rebounds away from dangerous areas.
However, his puck tracking and play reading need improvement. He often reacted late to
releases and passes, forcing him into reactive sequences rather than controlled ones. His
hands also lack activity and projection. While his foundation is solid, his upside appears limited
without a defining elite trait.

Gavin Betts
2026/04/29 vs Sweden (2–4)
Again, Betts’ structure and positioning were strong. His movements were efficient and
purposeful. His compact stance helped compensate for tracking issues, allowing him to make
contact with pucks even when reacting late. However, he could have challenged shooters more
in situations where passing options were limited. He also defaulted too quickly to RVH on short-
side plays, exposing openings. His hands remained passive, particularly his glove, which limited
his ability to control pucks cleanly. He projects as a lower-upside prospect with a solid floor but
a long path to becoming draftable.

Martin Psohlavec
2026/04/29 vs Finland (2–1)
Another strong showing from Psohlavec. He displayed improved quickness and athleticism,
suggesting that previous concerns about speed may be less significant. His hands were active
and well positioned, helping him maximize his save radius. His post integration was effective,
mixing RVH and overlap appropriately. He also showed strong anticipatory habits, reading
passes and arriving set on time. One area for improvement is his cross-crease slide trajectory.

At times, his path was too linear, opening holes that better shooters could exploit. With
refinement, he could develop into a strong prospect. At this stage, he remains a solid late-round
option.

Marek Sklenička
2026/04/25 vs Germany (2–3 OT)
Sklenička’s size and athleticism remain appealing, but this was not his strongest performance.
His post integration was solid, but puck tracking issues were evident. He reacted late to shots
and struggled to locate rebounds, especially through traffic. This led to inconsistent rebound
control, with pucks often bouncing off him rather than being absorbed. Despite this, his overall
body of work still supports a mid-round projection based on his physical tools.

Brady Knowling
2026/04/28 vs Latvia (2–5)
An inconsistent performance from Knowling. He started strong, with efficient movements and
good puck tracking, limiting rebounds. However, his game deteriorated as pressure increased.
Tracking became inconsistent and his angling suffered, leading to the game-winning goal.He
was also exposed on plays from behind the goal line, where he tracked the pass visually but
failed to move his body accordingly, reacting late to the shot. While his tools and
competitiveness remain appealing, these inconsistencies make it difficult to justify selecting him
before the third round.

Patriks Plūmiņš
2026/05/01 vs Czechia (1–4)
Plūmiņš was less tested in this game but still made key saves to keep Latvia competitive. His
puck tracking on perimeter shots was excellent, even through traffic. He controlled rebounds
well and reacted effectively on deflections. On larger recoveries, his athleticism allowed him to
stay in plays. However, his routes on plays from the corner were not always optimal, limiting his
angle coverage. A more aggressive path could have improved his chances on certain goals.
Still, another strong performance reinforcing his draft value.

Martin Psohlavec
2026/05/01 vs Sweden (3–4 OT)

Psohlavec continued his strong tournament with another impressive performance. His
positioning was a key strength. He followed his arc well, staying controlled while maintaining
appropriate aggressiveness. His anticipation allowed him to beat passes and arrive set without
oversliding. He also showed strong athleticism for his size, making difficult saves during
recoveries. However, he struggled on some clean perimeter shots, reacting slightly late. This
affected his puck tracking and resulted in goals he would likely want back. Additionally, his
tendency to lose structure during extended recoveries remains a concern. Overall, Psohlavec
significantly raised his stock during this tournament and made a strong case to be drafted.