The Bruins enter the fourth round with a trio of selections at 111, 120, and 123. Their fifth‑round pick (152nd) was shipped to Colorado in the Charlie Coyle deal, and their sixth‑rounder (184th) went to Vancouver in the Lukas Reichel trade. Their remaining pick in the seventh-round sits at 216th.
The Bruins held the 111th pick on three occasions, selecting Jeremy Swayman (2017), Matti Kaltiainen (2001) and Walter Johnson (1973). They held the 120th pick twice selecting Ryan Fitzgerald (2013) and Mike Krushelnyski (1978). And they held the 122nd pick four times, selecting Steve Foster (1989), Terry Taillefer (1983), Ralph Cox (1977) and Gary Carr (1975)
What wouldn’t surprise me — with three picks clustered so tightly in the fourth round — if the Bruins packaging two of them, or one of them plus an additional asset, to move up if there’s a player they really want. Alternatively, given they’re down two picks in 2027, they could flip one of these selections to recoup a 2027 pick instead – something they’ve done in the past under Sweeney.
Just a reminder, here is the breakdown of the ratings used:
Hockey IQ: This encompasses a wide range of traits — reading the play, vision, fin ding soft ice, understanding spacing, maintaining proper positioning (including defensively), making the right plays and more.
Skating: It’s not solely about straight‑line speed, though that’s part of the equation. The focus also falls on edgework, acceleration, stops and starts, first‑step quickness, mechanics, lateral mobility, backward skating, and overall fluidity.
Shot: This covers a player’s full shooting arsenal — power, release, deception, accuracy, and the ability to get pucks off cleanly under pressure.
Puck Moving: Despite the name, it’s about far more than simply transporting the puck up ice. It includes zone‑entry ability, passing touch, possession strength, transition efficiency, and making the right reads under pressure.
Compete: This reflects a player’s overall drive — intensity, forechecking pressure, board‑battle engagement, willingness to get to the dirty areas, involvement in scrums, commitment to defending with the same effort they bring offensively, relentlessness in puck pursuit, will do anything to win and consistency from shift to shift.
It’s time to dig into potential targets based on my own rankings. I’ve spoken with multiple scouts to gather their perspectives and cross‑checked those views against the consolidated lists that are out there. I’ve also included NHL Central Scouting’s numbers for context — even if I don’t always see eye‑to‑eye with them.
Let’s get to the list:
Gashilov is compelling because he brings a set of clearly projectable strengths while just as clearly showing areas that will require meaningful development to succeed at the next level. As one NHL scout put it to me, he’s “a unicorn wrapped in question marks.” And that leads to questions about where he will be drafted. For me, he fits right here.
Gashilov profiles as a true playmaking center, equipped with high‑end vision and the ability to thread passes through tight seams. He’s also effective on the hunt, pressuring defenders and trying to disrupt them on the forecheck. But his very lean frame limits him in contested situations, and he loses more 50‑50 battles than you’d like to see. Adding strength will be essential for him to round out his game and translate his skill set to higher levels.
Two elements are holding him back at this stage: his shooting and his skating. He doesn’t yet possess a threatening shot, and his accuracy remains inconsistent — both areas that are fixable with focused development. His skating mechanics also need to come along; as someone expected to drive play, that will become increasingly important as he climbs levels. With the right coaching, improvement is certainly possible, but if you’re considering him higher than this range, you need to be confident those tools can take a step. If they do, projecting him as a middle‑six center isn’t unrealistic. The Consensus seems to be he’ll be gone long before this pick.
One NHL scout didn’t hesitate when asked for his view: “He won’t be there at 111. He’s higher on our list.” That confidence is notable, but there are two clear concerns with Kulebiakin (or Kulebyakin). For a player with his frame, he doesn’t possess the high‑end speed typically required to maximize that size. And while his compete level is consistently strong, he lacks the physical strength to win battles and can be knocked off pucks too easily. Fixable, yes.
His lack of top‑end speed is a concern, but the rest of his skating package is legitimately high end. He’s exceptionally agile, with quick directional changes, strong starts and stops, and standout edgework. Offensively, he profiles as a high‑end playmaker with excellent vision and the versatility to operate on either wing. His release is deceptively quick and has the ability to beat goaltenders clean. His puck‑handling skills are elite, though there are moments where he’d benefit from leaning on his teammates rather than trying to solve every sequence on his own.
Like many young players, Kulebiakin still needs refinement in his play away from the puck. But if you’re targeting a high‑skill swing with real upside, he fits that profile. His developmental path is long but promising: he’s expected to return to the QMJHL next season before heading to the University of Massachusetts for the 2027–28 campaign.
It’s been a whirlwind season for Palma, and it’s exactly why there’s real untapped potential here. He opened the year in Sweden’s U18 Nationell, earned a promotion to the U20 level, and produced 14 points in 20 games. That surge pushed him into a handful of SHL appearances — a notable climb in a short span. As one NHL scout put it, “I was very impressed by him at the Under‑18s’ (World Junior Championships U-18).
Palme plays with a calm, confident presence under pressure, and it shows in every touch. He retrieves pucks quickly and jump‑starts transition with crisp, accurate outlets. Defensively, he’s assertive — he attacks carriers, leans into contact, and has no hesitation driving opponents into the boards to kill plays. His gap control is excellent, supported by a highly active stick. Offensively, he’s eager to join the rush and isn’t shy about activating at the blue line. His reads on when to pinch and when to pull back are consistently strong, giving him a reliable two‑way profile with room to grow.
Injuries played a role in his uneven season, and that likely influenced how some evaluators view him. Consistency was an issue, and his skating mechanics need work — at times it even gives the impression of a lack of effort. Still, there are tools in Palme’s game that are genuinely intriguing. There are certainly safer options on the board, but at this spot, I like the swing.
Bourque is a true power forward, capable of playing center or wing, and he embodies the role every shift. His motor never fades, he hunts contact, and he welcomes the physical side of the game. As one NHL scout told me, “At a recent scouting meeting, I tried to convince our group he’s underrated.”
Bourque isn’t just a finisher at this level — though his heavy, accurate shot can jump off his stick in tight spaces. He’s also shown high‑end playmaking instincts, with the vision to spot seams and the touch to thread pucks through them. His skating is above average, featuring strong straight‑line speed, and he already carries an NHL‑ready frame, though there’s still room to add upper‑body strength.
Bourque is strong on the backcheck, but there’s still room for growth in his overall defensive detail and his ability to stay within structure. I’d also like to see improvement in his agility and lateral movement — too often he tries to go through defenders rather than challenge them with his feet, even though he has the ability to do so at the junior level.
I grouped picks 120 and 122 together because they’re essentially back‑to‑back. If the Bruins don’t use them as part of a move to trade up, I’d be more than comfortable walking away with any two players from this tier.
I’ll admit I probably have Croskery lower than most — at least compared to where other lists have him. One scout even told me, “You’ve got him 10–12 spots too low.” But I still have a few questions and concerns that keep me from moving him higher.
Croskery fits the mold of a transitional, puck‑moving defenseman. He’s quick on retrievals, eludes pressure effectively, and gets play moving north in a hurry — at times looking like a one‑man breakout. His hockey sense and vision are clear strengths, but once he’s up ice, some of his decisions leave you wanting a bit more polish. Defensively, he does a strong job killing plays early with excellent gap control and an ability to take away time and space.
He’ll need to add some much‑needed strength to handle the next level, and while his straight‑line skating is very good, his lateral agility and edgework still require refinement. These are all fixable areas. After a preseason injury cost him the first third of the year, it’s entirely possible I’m being a bit harsh on him at this spot.
As one scout put it, “If you’re looking for a shutdown defenseman with limited offensive upside, you can’t go wrong with Eriksson.” The question, as always, is where you’re willing to draft that specific archetype.
Eriksson brings a massive frame and he uses every bit of it — he punishes opponents and never shies away from contact. Just when you think you’ve gained a step, he closes quickly and rides you into the boards. His long wingspan allows him to disrupt plays all over the defensive zone, and he logs heavy, hard minutes while serving as a key penalty‑killing option.
As strong as he is defensively, you shouldn’t expect much offense from him, even with a heavy, accurate NHL‑caliber shot. His value lies in what he erases, not what he creates. The bigger concern is his skating. The best way to describe it is chunky — he gets around fine, but the agility and overall pace just aren’t there yet.
I’ll be the first to admit someone will probably take a flyer on him earlier than I have him slotted. One NHL scout even told me, “You’ve got him too low.” My hesitation comes from the fact that his rise up some lists feels tied to an offensive season that was more solid than truly standout — and he went quiet over the final 15 games.
McLaughlin is an above‑average skater with very good mobility and excellent edgework. He uses that skating base to slip pressure on retrievals and evade the forecheck, and his speed — paired with strong puck skills — makes him a real asset on breakouts with the ability to go coast‑to‑coast when he’s feeling it. When he’s dialed in, he can be shifty and creative in the offensive zone, processing play at a quick pace and attacking with confidence.
My concerns show up on the defensive side of his game. Too often he forces plays in the offensive zone, makes poor pinching reads, and leaves his partner exposed to odd‑man rushes. In his own end, he leans heavily on his skating and reach to defend. While he’s willing to engage physically, he doesn’t yet have the strength or muscle mass to consistently win those battles. These are all correctable traits, but I would’ve liked to see more progression over the course of the season to feel comfortable taking him earlier.
With no fifth‑ or sixth‑round selections, we jump straight to the Bruins’ final pick at 216. Boston has held that slot only once before, taking Steve Norton back in 1991. The last time they found any promise that late was Ty Gallagher at 217 in 2021 — and before that, Zach Trotman at 210 in 2010.
At this stage of the draft, finding a player who eventually reaches the NHL is exceptionally rare — bordering on nonexistent. What you’re really targeting are prospects who show flashes of identifiable skill but will require a long, patient development runway. And even then, there’s no guarantee you’re uncovering an NHL player.
I’ve zeroed in on three players who fit that profile — and, fittingly enough, they’re all right‑shot defensemen, a shortage that runs through every layer of the Bruins’ system. For that reason alone, they’re the targets I’d circle if they’re still on the board.
If it’s offense you’re seeking, you’ll need to look elsewhere. What he does provide, however, is high‑end shutdown ability — the kind of defensive presence that consistently makes life difficult for opposing forwards.
Chartrand is an excellent skater with clean mechanics, strong lateral agility, and some of the best backward mobility in this draft class — all essential traits for a shutdown defender. His gap control is consistently sound; he uses his skating to angle attackers wide before eliminating the play. His overall game leans heavy, built on physicality and a high success rate in one‑on‑one battles. He’s exceptionally strong and handles net‑front responsibilities at an above‑average level.
There is considerable development still needed. His transition game requires refinement; he often opts for the safe outlet pass rather than carrying the puck out of pressure himself. When he’s dialed in, he’s effective, but he can be prone to occasional misreads. The good news is that Chartrand has a long runway to address these areas. He’ll return to Saint John next season — a strong developmental environment — before heading to Boston College for the 2027–28 campaign.
If you’re expecting offense from Rolsing, you’ll need to look elsewhere. What he offers instead is a towering, German‑born shutdown defender — hello Marco Sturm — who has logged significant international experience over the past two years in addition to his time in the WHL.
For a 6’6″ defenseman, Rolsing is an impressive skater. He doesn’t offer much in terms of straight‑line speed, but his agility is better than expected for a player his size. His long reach and active stick allow him to control his own zone effectively, and his puck‑retrieval skills are strong. While he’s not the type to skate the puck out of trouble, he consistently delivers a crisp first pass — even under pressure. His defensive play was strong enough to earn recognition as one of Germany’s top three players at the IIHF World U18 Championship.
There are, however, some clear areas of concern. Despite his imposing frame, he had not played a consistently physical style before arriving in the WHL. That element has begun to emerge in his game, slowly but steadily, but he’s not fully there yet. Rolsing remains a long‑term project, and with no firm commitment regarding where he’ll play next, his development path is still uncertain.
Tuminaro is a two‑way defenseman who brings a strong defensive presence. He is widely recognized for his exceptional off‑ice commitment to physical fitness, as well as for his leadership and character at a young age. He was the Steel’s nominee for the Gaudreau Award.
While he is primarily recognized for his defensive reliability — strong positioning, effective use of his reach, net‑front control, and steady transitional play — his offensive game remains a work in progress. He missed nearly an entire season following shoulder surgery, but returned this year to make a meaningful impact for the Steel, help Team USA capture gold at the World Junior A Challenge, and earn an invitation to the Chipotle All‑American Game.
There is a substantial developmental runway ahead for Tuminaro. He will join a strong program at Cornell University next season, where we’ll get a clearer sense of whether there is untapped offensive upside in his game. One scout suggested to me that he may not still be on the board at this spot. Time will tell.
That closes out my look at potential Bruins targets for the 2026 NHL Draft. We won’t have to wait long to see which direction Boston goes, and I’ll have full coverage of every selection — even if none of the names highlighted here end up being the ones called.
On June 20 at 9:00 a.m., Linc Zdancewicz of McKeen’s Hockey will join the Dom‑Hockey Podcast to break down McKeen’s draft board and discuss potential Bruins targets from rounds one through seven. Keep an eye on the Podcast page at the top of the site for updates on upcoming episodes.
