NHL Draft confidential: What scouts and executives think of Bedard, Michkov and more

The Athletic has live coverage of NHL Draft 2023

Today we bring you our annual NHL Draft Confidential. This piece comprises conversations I’ve had with NHL personnel over the past weeks and months about the top names and the biggest questions in the 2023 NHL Draft. We hope this gives you an idea of how the league perceives the top prospects and big debates in the draft this season.

As a note, references to “Scout 1” or “Executive 1” across various questions do not mean those answers came from the same person — meaning “Scout 1” may appear in different questions but may be answered by different people. Scouts and executives were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about the prospects in question.

To start, as we always do in the discussion of the 2023 NHL Draft, we turn to Regina center and likely No. 1 pick to Chicago Connor Bedard. What does the league think of the consensus top prospect?

NHL executive 1: “He might be the best junior player I’ve seen.”

NHL scout 1: “I worry the hype on him is getting a little out of control. He’s No. 1, he’s the guy, amazing player, but I’m not sure I’m projecting him to be like an immediate top 5-10 player in the league or something. He’s not McDavid. I still think you’re getting someone who could have a Patrick Kane-type of career though if he hits.”

Scout 2: “His skill is special. His shot is special. He has elite talent but brings it every night. He rises to the occasion when it’s needed, and has a physical edge in him too.”

Executive 2: “He’s the same level of prospect as Auston Matthews was as a No. 1. I may have him over Matthews at the same age but it’s closer to that than someone like McDavid mostly because I’m worried Bedard may end up a wing at some point.”

Scout 3: “He would be analogous to Jack Hughes as a prospect for me.”

Scout 4: “He’s a dynamic, game-breaking center who steps up in big moments.”

All right, No. 1 is settled. Who should Anaheim take at No. 2?

Scout 1: “I would take Carlsson. He has elite skill, he’s smarter than Fantilli although not as good a skater. I think he’s someone who could have a Mikko Rantanen type of career.”

Executive 1: “Michkov would seriously be in the conversation for us if we had the No. 2 pick. I get all the risks but he could honestly push Bedard in terms of pure ability.”

Scout 2: “It’s Fantilli, don’t overthink it. He’s a big, fast, physical, Canadian center who led college hockey in scoring. He could be a legit No. 1 C in the NHL. It’s a no brainer.”

Executive 2: “If I was picking (the) best pure player, I would struggle between Fantilli and Michkov to the very end, but given the world we live in, Fantilli all day is the guy.”

Scout 3: “I think people are presuming it’s going to be Fantilli but I wouldn’t be so confident. There are a lot of Leo Carlsson fans in the league, people who believe he’s the better player than Fantilli.”

Scout 4: “I would think about Will Smith [if I were Anaheim], his brain plus skill package is pretty special, but I would still lean Fantilli, he just does too much well.

Executive 3: “I would take Carlsson. I think he could be the next Barkov.”

This leads us to the real debate at the top of the draft: Matvei Michkov. How good is he? Where would you take him?

Michkov is the story of the 2023 NHL Draft. He’s a player who gets sky-high grades in skill and hockey sense and has put up huge numbers for years, but the winger is signed in the KHL through the end of the 2025-26 KHL season with SKA St. Petersburg.

Executive 1: “For me, he would absolutely be in the conversation with the No. 2 pick. He’s that good.”

Executive 2: “If I got my ownership’s approval, I’m taking him as high as No. 3 and possibly even No. 2.”

Executive 3: “I would let someone else pick him. Between his skating, frame, one-way play and his demeanor there’s too much risk for me at the highest points of the draft before you get into the obvious stuff with his contract and the war.”

Executive 4: “He’s a hockey genius. He’s the second-best player in the draft, and all things being equal, could push Bedard as a pure player. I get balancing the risks versus taking a very good center but once those guys are gone I would take Michkov.”

Scout 1: “I saw Tarasenko at the same age. Michkov is better.”

Executive 5: “He would have been the No. 1 pick in a lot of the past few drafts and that’s possibly with the Russia and contract situation included. You don’t want to overthink it with a talent like this.”

Scout 2: “Central has him at 5-foot-10, but that’s unofficial, I think he’s closer to 5-9. So you have a 5-9 not-amazing-skating, average-compete winger. The range of outcomes are narrow. Either he’s what you hope he becomes, which is a legit star scorer, or he’s closer to a very ordinary and replaceable piece if he doesn’t hit.”

Executive 6: “I get taking Fantilli over him. I think Michkov is a slightly better player, but Fantilli is a star, he’s Canadian, a center, I get it. I would have a hard time stomaching taking Carlsson over Michkov. I think you’re leaving too much talent on the table.”

Executive 7: “It’s a lot easier to just take somebody else. You may be waiting the full three years, you may be waiting longer. Meanwhile, the guys you passed on are helping your opponents win games against you.”

Scout 3: “Six to 10 is where the debate starts for me. Bedard, Fantilli, Carlsson, Smith are all studs, and you know they’re playing for you and likely going to be excellent. I would seriously wrestle with Reinbacher versus him too. But once all those guys are gone I think you would start to twist my arm to take him.”

Scout 4: “I just say put him where he belongs on talent and if he’s the best player I take him. Maybe if it’s close to someone else you take them instead. When was the last time a good Russian player didn’t come? I know the circumstances with the war are different than in recent years, but I have a hard time imagining him not coming. It may take longer than you like, but he looks like he has a chance to be a star. You win with stars, and if he becomes that good when he arrives he will instantly change your team. If he won’t sign with you, then you have a massive trade piece.”

Scout 5: “I just don’t see him going at the very top parts of the draft. You guys in the media have overhyped him. An NHL team is not taking him top 5 given the myriad of risks in his profile.”

Executive 8: “Once Bedard, Fantilli, Smith, Carlsson go is when I start to think about it. Dvorsky versus Michkov, Reinbacher versus Michkov, that would be a real debate in our room. Once you get past guys like that it starts to get a bit ridiculous though. You can have real reservations about picking him for legit reasons, but he’s generational at the hardest thing to do: scoring goals.”

Executive 9: “You pass on him and you’re probably never going to find that kind of hockey sense again.”

Executive 10: “He’s very good, but “the best Russian prospect since Ovechkin” hype he gets is over the top. He’s a lot closer to Tarasenko as a prospect than Ovie.”

This is a really good U.S NTDP group, that won gold at the U18 Worlds. Will Smith is the guy, right? But who goes second from that team and incredible top line?

Scout 1: “I think it’s Oliver Moore. Moore’s skating is dimensional. He could step into the NHL tomorrow and be one of the better skaters in the league.”

Scout 2: “Leonard has so many ways he can impact an NHL game. He can play fast, he’s got a ton of skill, he scores big goals, and he has some nastiness in him. He’s the type of player coaches will crave, managers will think that’s who you win with.”

Scout 3: “Leonard looks like a pro. He has the fewest flaws in his skill set. He could be better than Smith when it’s all said and done.”

Scout 4: “Perreault. His skill and vision are pretty special and he competes well too, so you can live with the size and skating issues.”

Scout 5: “I think it’s clearly Leonard. I think he’s as good as Smith. Maybe not quite as smart as him, but he competes harder and has a ton of skill too.”

Executive 1: “Perreault is very underrated. He has a ton of skill and vision, scored at the same pace as Smith. He lacks size, but he competes well. I think he’s top 10 in the draft, similar player to Cole Perfetti.”

Executive 2: “Your question has the presumption Smith is the No. 1 guy, but there are several people on our staff who would take Leonard over Smith.”

Scout 6: “I guess Leonard, but Smith is our No. 2.”

Scout 7: “Leonard. He’s a gamer, when you need to win in the playoffs, you want that guy on your team. He should be a top 6-7 pick.”

Executive 3: “Leonard is our No. 2 but Perreault is right behind him on our list. I could go either way. Leonard is just such a good all-around hockey player though, the kind of guy you win with.”

Who is No. 2 in the WHL? I presume No. 1 (Connor Bedard) is not up for debate!

Scout 1: “Every time I’ve watched the ICE, Benson is the best player on the ice. He has issues for sure in his projection, but bottom line he competes his ass off and he makes an impact every night. He’s the guy.”

Executive 1: “Danielson. He has so much going for him. He’s a great skater, the size down the middle, he has skill, hockey sense, he plays both ways. He could be a better skating version of Anton Lundell.”

Scout 2: “Danielson has an easy path to being a top two-line NHL center. He skates very well, he’s smart, he competes, he has NHL size. People are sleeping on him.”

Executive 2: “Benson, because he has elite hockey sense, and he’s a competitor. The skating isn’t amazing at that size, but he’s quite elusive, he doesn’t get hit a lot, he can pull away when he needs to.”

Executive 3: “Danielson has a lot of NHL in him, a ton of upside between his size, skating and skill. He didn’t have as much around him as the other top guys, but he would have put up a lot of points on a different team.”

Scout 3: “Brayden Yager is a gamer. I know he didn’t score a ton this season, but he scored 30 as a 16-year-old. He’s a two-way player, you want him on the ice in any critical situation. He skates so well, he competes hard, he’s super intelligent, his shot is lethal, I think there’s a lot in his game that will translate into a highly successful pro.”

Executive 4: “Samuel Honzek does everything well. He’s fast, skilled, he can score and create offense for his teammates. He works hard. He can create from the perimeter, he can be a net-front guy, and can kill penalties, and does all of this in a 6-foot-4 frame. There’s so much more pro in his game than the other choices.”

Samuel Honzek finished tied for second in horizonal jump in the 2023 NHL Scouting Combine fitness testing. Honzek is the No. 9 ranked North American Skater and a member of the @WHLGiants.

See full details: https://t.co/8mBriFOcK3 pic.twitter.com/JUfpBr9B4P

— NHL Public Relations (@PR_NHL) June 10, 2023

Scout 4: “I lean Danielson. He looks like a no-doubt NHL center, a guy who is going to play for a long time and be very good for you. I can’t sit here and promise you big point totals, maybe they come, maybe they don’t, but you can pick him and sleep easy.”

Executive 5: “It’s between Danielson and Honzek for me. I lean Danielson because of the position. Both have NHL bodies and skating ability, produce offense and are two-way guys.”

Scout 5: “You said your comp for Benson is Jonathan Marchessault. You look at Marchessault in the playoffs this spring, I want that player.“

Who is the best defense prospect this season? Who’s number two? How high should they go? Anyone people are sleeping on?

Executive 1: “It’s probably Reinbacher or Sandin Pellikka. Depends on the traits you’re seeking, Pellikka is more offensive, but Reinbacher looks more like a prototypical NHL defenseman.”

On Thursday, we broke down the center group of the 2023 NHL Draft. Today, it’s time for the defensemen.

Let’s start with Tier 1: David Reinbacher and Dmitri Simashev.

✍️ @coreypronman https://t.co/MWsy4VRxDi

— The Athletic (@TheAthletic) June 9, 2023

Scout 1: “It’s Reinbacher for sure at the top. He looks like a legit pro defenseman, shades of Noah Dobson. Don’t be surprised if he goes top five.”

Scout 2: “I think Oliver Bonk is going to surprise people with where he goes. First round for sure, could even see him go comfortably in the top 20, there’s a lot of NHL in his game. You look at the playoffs, all those big, mobile puck-moving defensemen, teams will covet a player like him.”

Scout 3: “Simashev should be the first defenseman picked on pure ability. He has top pair tools. Will someone actually do it, especially with how good Reinbacher looked? I’m guessing unlikely.”

Executive 2: “I don’t think Gulyayev is the best, but he’s close. He has high-end hockey sense, he can create versus men with dynamic skating and skill. There’s a lot of modern-day NHL defenseman in his game.”

Executive 3: “I wouldn’t take any defenseman in the upper half of the first. I think guys like Reinbacher, Sandin Pellikka, etc., are being propped up because of the scarcity of D in this draft.”

Scout 4: “Reinbacher is the clear top defenseman, I think he could go top five. After that on talent, it’s Simashev, but in reality, it will likely be Sandin Pellikka or Tom Willander.”

Scout 5: “I’ll go rogue and say Willander is the best defenseman. He’s such a good skater, I think he’s just going to keep getting better and better.”

Scout 6: “He’s not the best, but Tanner Molendyk is not far from the top of the D group for us. He’s an elite skater, a true competitor. He will have a long NHL career.”

Executive 4: “Reinbacher is the best defenseman. I would take Willander next, but in terms of pure ability I would have Simashev narrowly ahead.”

Scout 7: “Simashev is the best D in the draft. Reinbacher and Willander are good players but Simashev is a 6-4, excellent skating defenseman with skill. You can’t find those guys on the open market.”

Scout 8: “Willander is a stud. Not everyone on our staff agrees but he’s the best D for me and would be comfortably in the top 10.”

What about in net? Who is the main goaltender prospect this year?

Scout 1: “It would be Carson Bjarnason for me. Adam Gajan had better moments this season, but Bjarnason was the starter all year in a better league and played well all season. He’s very athletic, good frame.”

Scout 2: “Michael Hrabal could be special. He struggled down the stretch but some of his performances in the first half were very impressive. Six-foot-6 goalies who move like him are not easy to find. I could be convinced to take him in the first round.”

Executive 1: “Gajan is probably the most exciting player of the bunch. He’s (a) rare athlete.”

Scout 3: “It’s tough. Augustine has the numbers, but not the NHL skill set. Gajan didn’t play in a good league. Hrabal was up and down, same with Bjarnason. They’re all good, could all go in the second round, but I don’t think anyone separated from the pack.”

Executive 2: “It’s between Hrabal and Gajan for most potential, with Augustine a close third for me.”

New post @TheAthleticNHL: Breaking down the goaltender class in the 2023 NHL Draft https://t.co/OeZXv6gn3j

— Corey Pronman (@coreypronman) June 12, 2023

Scout 4: “It’s down to Hrabal or Gajan. Both are long-term plays who had up and down seasons, they need a lot of development time, but they have legit starting goalie upside if they hit.”

Scout 5: “It’s clearly Hrabal. He has a chance to go in the first round. He’s a 6-6 goalie with athleticism and a strong track record, those aren’t easy to find especially if your organization has a need.”

Executive 3: “Gajan is the most talented of the bunch. He has that freak athleticism you see in star NHL goaltenders. But he’s very wild and will need a lot of work to make it. It’s real close between him and Hrabal.”

It’s always hard to project where top Russian prospects will land in a draft, but that’s especially the case since the invasion of Ukraine. We discussed Michkov earlier, but where do the Lokomotiv duo of Daniil But (wing) and Dmitri Simashev (defenseman) go? Both are huge players with intriguing talent.

Scout 1: “But should be top 15, wouldn’t surprise me at all if he went in the top 10. You compare him to some of the other big wingers like Samuel Honzek, Quentin Musty or Matthew Wood and he’s better than them for me.”

Scout 2: “Simashev is just as good as David Reinbacher as a player for me, probably better, but one obviously has a lot less risk as a draft pick so Reinbacher will likely go ahead. Simashev has top-pair potential in the NHL. He’s a 6-foot-4, clear NHL caliber skating defenseman who is solid defensively and can move the puck well.”

Executive 1: “Simashev is a good player. He’s big, can skate and can defend like a pro. The lack of offense does worry me a little bit. If you’re stepping up with a high pick for a player in Russia, you’d like them to be a real player, and there’s a chance you may just be drafting a defensive third-pair guy.”

Executive 2: “But is top 10 all day on pure ability. He’s a rare talent, has all the offensive tools, can skate and is massive. Just a matter of when someone is willing to draft him, likely in the first.”

Executive 3: “It wouldn’t surprise me if But ended up anywhere in the first round. You saw last year with Danila Yurov those guys could slide to the 20s, but he’s a top 10, if not top 5 talent in this draft, and he could end up going that high too.”

Executive 4: “They’re both top 10 talents in the draft. Whether you’re willing to pull that trigger or not high in the draft is another story, but they’re high-echelon players.”

Scout 3: “Everyone is going to have a top tier of players, the guys they are confident will have long NHL careers. That group could be 8, 10, 12 players deep depending on your opinion of the draft class. Once all the no-doubters are gone, we start talking about But, because on talent, he belongs in that category. Simashev is a little later for me; closer to 20-25 it starts becoming a serious conversation.

Executive 5: “If But was playing in the CHL he would be a top 5 pick, Simashev close to top 10.”

Scout 4: “I think both are going to go in the top half of the first round, Russian factor included. They’re just too good.”

There’s always divisive players in a draft. What are scouts saying about the hot-button players outside Michkov?

We’ll start with the most divisive player, Andrew Cristall, a 5-foot-10 winger from Kelowna in the WHL. He’s top 10 on some public lists, some teams don’t have him close to that range. His skating/size versus his elite production in junior seems to be the crux of the argument.

Scout 1: “He’s a deadly good junior player. I don’t see the way he plays translating to the pros. I would want someone else to take him. If he was there late second/early third I would take the gamble, but I would presume he will be gone by then.”

Scout 2: “At some point, he is worth the gamble because he is so skilled offensively. His skating isn’t good though and his compete is just OK so I wouldn’t do it in the first round.”

Executive 1: “He won’t be a guy we target. I think he’s good and could very well make it and have a career, I just don’t see that player on an NHL roster late in the spring.”

Executive 2: “I would take him late in the first. He has pretty special skill and hockey sense, was consistently impactful in my viewings. You’re going to have to work with him on a lot, but if you hit he could be a home run.”

Executive 3: “I would struggle to take him in the top two rounds. There’s no doubting his offense, but I think there is so much risk in his projection. I can’t think of the last NHL player who looked like him.”

Scout 3: “I wouldn’t overthink it with him. Every game he gets or creates a ton of scoring chances, the puck follows him around the ice. You have to hedge a bit because of the size and skating for sure, but he’s still at worst a top 20 guy in the draft and probably better than that.”

Executive 4: “He’s got high-end skill and hockey sense. He’s a good player, and an elite junior, but there’s so much risk in his NHL projection. He needs to hit and be top six or else he’s in the AHL. I would happily let someone else take him in the first round.”

Scout 4: “There’s a lot of risk in picking him high, a lot. But man is he talented. The upside in him is so high. If he was there in the 20s or 30s, I would do it.”

Executive 5: “Cristall never has to sharpen his outside edges (referring to how often Cristall employs a 10-2 skating stride). I’m fine letting someone else take that swing.”

What about Calum Ritchie, the Oshawa center? He seemed like a top-15 lock in August, is that still the case?

Scout 1: “I’m worried a bit about how much the team around him in Oshawa affected him. He led the Hlinka Gretzky in scoring when surrounded by better players. He has all the tools: size, skating, skill, hockey sense. If he gets to the second half of the first, someone is going to get a lot of player.”

Scout 2: “He looks the part, but it would highly concern me how few games this season I actually walked away talking about how well he played.”

Executive 1: “The consistency is the most obvious issue in his game because he has all the tools you look for. I don’t think his compete is an issue, he’s not soft, but I think he needs to be pushed a bit.”

Executive 2: “It wouldn’t shock me if he fell out of the first round. I love the tools and was a believer coming into the season but it was really tough to say he looked like a first-round pick this season.”

Scout 3: “He looks like an all-day NHL player. I can’t tell you how much he’s going to score or if he’s a center or wing, but he will help an NHL team. “

Charlie Stramel was once thought of as a potential lottery pick, but a tough freshman season at Wisconsin for the 6-foot-3 center has some wondering if he’ll even go in the first round now.

Scout 1: “He’s a good player. He’s a big body who can skate. His year didn’t go well, but people will remember how he looked with the U.S. NTDP, how he looked at the world juniors. He will be a first-round pick.”

Scout 2: “He made it tough to like him this season. He showed very little hockey sense, often was in the background at games I saw. Would have liked to see him compete harder even if his team was overwhelmed.”

Scout 3: “In junior, I saw a big guy with some skill who can skate and was … nasty … to play against. That last part wasn’t always there for me in college.”

Scout 4: “If he missed the whole season due to injury he would have been a no-doubt top 15 pick based on what he showed with the U.S. program. He didn’t have a good season, the team was a bit of a disaster around him and there were concerning things in his play as well, but I think he’s still a first-round player.”

Executive 1: “He’s a dime-a-dozen type of big guy who can skate a little and hits guys. He doesn’t have much offense. He’s not going to be a target for us.”

Executive 2: “He didn’t have a good season, but I’ve been a fan of his for a few years, it’s not easy to find guys who play like him. I think he’s going to rebound and will have a long NHL career.”

Gavin Brindley had a great freshman season at Michigan, but he’s barely 5-foot-9. Is he going to go in the first round?

Scout 1: “There are so few players in the NHL who look like him, especially on winning teams.”

Executive 1: “I get the size concerns but man does he bring it. He goes up against bigger guys every night and seems to always be winning battles and outcompeting so-called high-compete big guys. He’s a late first/early second type for us.”

Executive 2: “He’s a good player. He’s tiny, but he plays very hard, is a great skater and has offense. He won’t go in the first but I’d be excited to pick him in the second.

Who are some top prospects that are getting overrated in the media discourse?

Scout 1: “Matvei Michkov. People projecting him in the top five are out to lunch given all the risks associated with him.”

Scout 2: “Jayden Perron. He’s talented but 5-9 perimeter forwards don’t really help an NHL team.”

Executive 1: “Eduard Sale. (Editor’s note: Sale received multiple votes). His compete is so concerning. He has top-line forward-caliber skill, but he feels like the kind of player you draft and then are trying to move a few years later.”

Scout 3: “Oliver Moore. He’s an elite skater, but he’s a 5-11 forward with average hockey sense. I don’t see him scoring a ton in the NHL. I worry you’re using a high pick on a small bottom-six forward who just buzzes around the ice with speed and energy.”

Executive 2: “Zach Benson. I worry at that size and speed how his game translates, it would be a lot of risk for me in a top 10 pick, especially for a winger.”

Scout 4: “Tanner Molendyk. I just see an undersized defenseman who can skate really well, but doesn’t have much offense. There’s not much value in that kind of player.”

Scout 5: “My answer all season was Andrew Cristall but I think people caught up to that one by the end. My answer now is Matthew Wood. He’s a late first/early second for me, a lot of risks with him hitting because of his skating and compete.”

On the flip side, who is not getting enough love publicly? Who could go top 10-12 that people aren’t talking about enough?

Executive 1: “Gabe Perreault. His skill and hockey sense are rather special. I think he’s a top 10 guy, you could possibly argue him all the way up to 5.”

Scout 1: “Bradly Nadeau. He should be a top-20 pick on talent. He gets unfairly dinged because of the league he plays in.”

Scout 2: “Nate Danielson. He’s an all-day NHL player, candidate to go in the top 10. He skates, competes and has the size of an NHL center and I think there will be enough offense for him to play big minutes.”

Executive 2: “Tom Willander is going to go very high. He’s a high-end skater who can move pucks, those guys don’t last long.”

I didn’t ask every scout, but several participated in a quick flash poll of the best players at certain traits. The players are not listed in any specific order.

BEST SKATER

Oliver Moore (multiple)

Tanner Molendyk

Nick Lardis

Mikhail Gulyayev

Axel Sandin-Pellikka

BEST HANDS

Connor Bedard (multiple)

Matvei Michkov

Gabe Perreault

Will Smith

BEST HOCKEY SENSE

Connor Bedard (multiple)

Gabe Perreault

Will Smith

BEST SHOT

Connor Bedard (multiple)

Colby Barlow

Carson Rehkopf

MOST COMPETITIVE

Adam Fantilli (multiple)

Connor Bedard

Ryan Leonard

Kalan Lind

And to finish this exercise, some quotes on several of the top-rated prospects that weren’t addressed in any of the other questions.

Dalibor Dvorsky, C, AIK-Allsvenskan

Executive 1: “He’s an awesome player. High-end skill and scoring ability, gives a strong effort every night. I think once the consensus top four names outside Michkov go, he’s a very serious consideration for Montreal, Arizona, Philadelphia.”

Executive 2: “Dvorsky is excellent inside the offensive zone, but his skating would scare me for the range of the draft you need to pick him at.”

Colby Barlow, LW, Owen Sound-OHL

Scout 1: “He’s very good, would be a consideration for us if we had a top 10-12 pick. Excellent work ethic, plays with pace, great shot, and consistent scorer in his league. Your coach will love him and opponents will hate playing against him.”

Executive 1: “He’s a good player, but I’m not sure you are drafting a difference maker for a line. He’s a nice complimentary piece who works hard and can score goals.”

Quentin Musty, LW, Sudbury-OHL

Scout 1: “He’s very good, was one of the most dangerous offensive players in the OHL. High-end offense with size. If he gets past 15-20 someone could get value.”

Scout 2: “I had a hard time warming up to him. He’s skilled and creative, but he plays at one tempo and his effort was quite inconsistent for me.”

(Illustration: Sean Reilly / The Athletic; photos of Matvei Michkov, David Reinbacher and Adam Gajan: Minas Panagiotakis,
Maksim Konstantinov, Chase Agnello-Dean / Getty Images)