2024 Report Card: Nils Lundkvist and the ashes of the Honka wars

Here we go again. Again.

Slow season is upon us; just not here. I’ll have a report card for every Dallas player going through August. As always, consider upgrading to paid subscriber since some of these will be behind a paywall.

One sentence summary

But why? [/Ryan Reynolds Meme]

A few good stats

• GP: 71

• Goals: 2

• Assists: 17

• Points: 19

• Postseason: 12 GP — 0 goals, 1 assist — 1 point

• xSPAR: -1.5 less points in the standings (Rank: 23rd on the team)

Not sure what this chart means and need a filthy casual guide? Click here to learn more about Corey Sznajder’s A3Z tracking data.

Lundkvist has some very well-defined strengths, so much so that it’s easy to see why fans — and Jim Nill — still believe there’s something there. He’s a multi-tiered offensive presence, grading out extremely well as an offensive zone passer, and his shots create quite a bit of puck ectoplasm, for lack of a better term. (Or not: I love that word.) It’s all the below league average bars that dominate the rest of his tracking data that make it obvious why Dallas’ coaching staff doesn’t trust him: he simply doesn’t have presence or is capable of anything of note when it comes to transitioning the puck up ice, and own-zone play. It’s an amusing contradiction for a puck mover — as I often note— but so far his weaknesses have been the area of focus over his strengths.

Thematically appropriate highlight

Always so close, and always so far.

Grade: (An uneven) C

It’s hard not to start with all the subterfuge right off the bat. Bringing back Lundkivst makes zero sense for all the parties involved: for the coaching staff, who passed him up for AHL depth (first Joel Hanley last year, then Alex Petrovic this year), for Lundkvist and his agent, who now play into a more crowded veteran lineup, and for management, who doesn’t know a sunk cost fallacy when they see one. It’s like the Serenity plot where the twist is that everyone’s an NPC (basically; and no that is not a joke). Or at least that’s the unflattering, less charitable interpretation of events.

The positive spin is the story Jim Nill tells: Lundkvist is young (he’s only one year younger than Miro Heiskanen and Jason Robertson, and three years older than Wyatt Johnston and Logan Stankoven, granted), he’s getting better (more on that in a bit), and he’ll continue to grow with experience (he did, technically show up in the playoffs). Despite what appears to be some entry-level snark, I don’t actually take issue with anything Nill has said.

Yes, he’s an older prospect, but still a prospect, and he may yet reach his, if not the ceiling, perhaps the ceiling fan. Development happens at different rates. While I’m not sure Lundkvist got better, he did get more opportunities, and even though I don’t think the opportunities were enough to help him develop as a direct result — seeing games in the playoffs is certainly better than the previous year, even if the shift lengths were insulting — it’s easy to see how the raw scope of his newfound experience could yield long term gains, however marginal.

To that end, I do believe marginal gains for a player like Lundkvist are intriguing. His offense is legit in very unique ways, being able to bombs away while also being a puck setter, so that part is taken care of. At this point, it’s all about the little things needed to grow in the defensive zone. Even a slight improvement in his first step feels like all it would take. But did we see any of that?

His ‘famously’ added strength was something I didn’t really notice except in spots; he was a bit more physical in the corners, and looked a little extra ‘spongy’ when taking hits to make a play. However, Lundkvist needs a dedicated skating coach, not a membership at an MMA gym. It’s great that he’s on track to be as big as his fellow countryman Alexander Gustafsson but unless Gustafsson can skate instead of punch (and boy could he ever), it’s all moot. He’s still too slow to accelerate, and too heavy getting off the wall.

He is, one of Dallas’ few puck movers in terms of getting out with possession, but it’s not so pronounced that it warrants a blue ribbon. (I feel like there’s more to be said for this data and what it means: Dallas doesn’t have anyone ‘in between’ when it comes to transitioning. It’s either boom or boost, which is — what I suspect — why they struggle to transition and attack consistently off the rush.)

However, I didn’t see a bad defender either.

Lundkvist plays the position the only way he knows how: scared to death of making mistakes in the defensive zone (in defense of Dallas, I think some of this is genuinely innate to the player), and unf@!kwithable in the offensive zone.

I don’t know what we can genuinely expect to learn at this point, though, especially given what’s at stake and the way those stakes are shoved in his face. I do think his point production is impressive given his minutes. But is yet another year of Can He/Will He really worth it? As I’ve said before, I think there’s enough to Lundkvist’s game that he can be an NHL option, but who does he play with? Who maximizes him? Like all playmakers — and that’s really what Lundkvist is — his environment needs to be perfectly tailored towards his skillset in order for him to have value, and Dallas flat out doesn’t have the blueline for that. If you remember how Ray Liotta meets his end in Killing Them Softly, those are the images that come to mind when I think about another year with Lundkvist: grim and inexplicably in slow motion.

I’m trying to think positive here. Lundkvist has enough game to contribute consistently. He’s not currently good enough, however, to overcome the weaknesses that the coaching staff punishes him for; weaknesses he has to fix on an egg timer. It’s an awful fit for both, which makes bringing him back all the more galaxy brained.

In many ways, Lundkvist had an incomplete season. He wasn’t given enough rope to gain confidence, and it arguably started last year when they decided Joel Hanley was a better option despite having even less of a future with Dallas. However, he didn’t really give Dallas enough reason to think positive either. I’m repeating repeating myself aren’t I?

Well so is Dallas, and we’re all the more confused for it.

For paid subscribers that missed our film room analysis of Lundkivst’s mistakes, here it is for reference: