A (Hopefully) Measured Take: Glen Gulutzan deserves the benefit of the doubt, even if you doubt the Stars

Embrace the paradox.

It was reported on the weekend by Darren Dreger and Elliotte Friedman that Dallas more or less found their new head coach in Glen Gulutzan (same as the old one, technically). Sean Shapiro confirmed it with his own sources that a deal was in place. Now that it’s finalized, I’m ready to talk about it.

To recap, Gulutzan has coached two different teams: the Dallas Stars and the Calgary Flames. It’s hard to know what to make of either stint. In Dallas, he had only two serious forwards in Jamie Benn, and Loui Eriksson (no disrespect to the brilliant Ray Whitney). The defense was made up of misfit toys punching well above their weight like Stephane Robidas, Trevor Daley, and Jordie Benn.

Calgary, on the other hand, is a much more interesting story, as Gulutzan inherited a far better team. But how much better? That’s the question. This was the dawn of the Matthew Tkachuk, Johnny Gaudreau (RIP), Sam Bennett, and Sean Monahan era. Gulutzan would come on board just as Tkachuk made his debut and while Bennett was a sophomore.

That team did make the playoffs. They were a classic, scrappy wildcard team thanks mostly to a strong defense core (this was Mark Giordano and T.J. Brodie’s prime, along with Dougie Hamilton) that ran into a first-place Anaheim team, and got swept. However, Calgary would miss the following year despite the team being mostly intact. The biggest difference was an injury to then-starter Mike Smith. It’s interesting looking back, and seeing the analysis at the time. Gulutzan seemed to make it a point to leverage Smith’s puck-handling ability. And it became a point of contention when that ability was lost to injury; so much so that Gulutzan famously lost his cool at practice that year.

Since then, Gulutzan has been an assistant coach in Edmonton, known for running the Oilers power play. We’ll get to that in a second. For now, these are Gulutzan’s resume in the broad strokes.

Source: Hockey-Reference.

Is that good? Or is that bad? I don’t know. You could argue he did a lot more with a lot less in Dallas. Did he do less with more in Calgary, or was he not given a proper chance? I don’t know. While he had blue chip talents to work with on the Flames, they were extremely young. The Calgary record gives us more clues than his record with Dallas, but it’s still not enough. Neither team was anywhere near contendership. When Gulutzan got a better team, he got better (however modest) results. Technically, he got great results with a great team.

The bulk of Gulutzan’s time in the NHL has been running the Edmonton power play. In that regard, he’s been very successful. I know what you’re saying. “Anybody could look great running a power play with Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl.” I happen to think this is a fair point. I also think it’s just wrong.

For one, it’s not like Dallas won’t have talent available to Gulutzan. Sure, there is no McDavid or Draisaitl, but Mikko Rantanen, Roope Hintz, Jason Robertson, Wyatt Johnston, Matt Duchene, Thomas Harley — not exactly chopped liver. For what it’s worth we’ll know Gulutzan is legit if he reunites one of the most dangerous units in the analytics era¹. That’s a joke but I also hope it isn’t, even if the peanut gallery would be up in arms over Rantanen on the second unit (hey I’m one of you!). Second: plenty of teams have a ton of talent on their power play unit and still rise below failure. Just look at Toronto and Colorado over the years.

Lastly, there’s an easy way to distinguish a well-run power play from a fortunate one: expected goals, adjusted for minutes. Edmonton has had one of the best expected goal rates in the Gulutzan era. In fact, prior to this season, the Oilers were consistently top three in rate of shot quality on the man advantage, twice outright taking the top spot.

Evolving-Hockey.

This is quite obviously a good sign, even if Gulutzan is not being hired to simply run the power play. For what it’s worth, we’ll dig deeper into Gulutzan’s approach to the man advantage, and how it differs from Steve Spott once we get closer towards the offseason doldrums.

One caveat is worth noting though. If Gulutzan does take charge of the power play, he will have big shoes to feel. While Spott was a pariah among fans, the Stars consistently generated a high amount of shot quality each and every season. Like Edmonton, they were also well-run.

Evolving-Hockey.

So where does that leave us? Is this cause for concern, or excitement?

I don’t think it tells us anything. I’m all-too-happy to tell you what I think. Often to a fault. And right now, I don’t have any strong opinions either way. What is there to go by? We’re talking about a young coach — eight years of minor league experience beforehand, only missing the playoffs once — who got two cracks at two rosters of middling quality, and when his time was up, he went into the hyperbolic time chamber to successfully focus on forwards, and the power play. That’s not a lot to go by. Not every event requires an immediate opinion, and certainly not an event with limited information.

I certainly understand the impulse. Gulutzan almost feels focus-tested. He’s North American. He has head coaching experience, including experience within the Dallas organization, which links him to Nill despite how things ended. He’s “put in the time.” He has that redemption arc storyline. It hits all the right notes that feel like nothing to do with hockey, and therefore (potentially) nothing to do with making Dallas a better team.

However, is that the truth or merely the impulse? That’s where I’m at with this decision. The impulse is to label this move as generic, and lacking in a sense of anything resembling boldness. But was boldness the answer? After all, this was my reaction to Florida hiring Paul Maurice too after his stint with Winnipeg. Granted, very different coaches, and scenarios — not to mention, plenty of retreads haven’t worked out. But we don’t know enough about Gulutzan to make that estimation. And the little we do have looks like a positive trend — like someone that has the makings of a good coach. Gulutzan may fit the profile of a retread, but I don’t believe that’s what he actually is. Tortorella or Gallant he is not.

Having said that, it’s easy to see how this could look like a disaster. What if somebody takes a chance on Neil Graham, and he goes on to have a successful career? Is somebody willing to tolerate the price of the brick going up on David Carle — which could have been Dallas?

What hurts Gulutzan here is that Dallas is expected to take a step back. A lot of interesting names in trade like Matias Maccelli (Toronto), Michael Kesselring (Buffalo), and Jordan Spence (Ottawa) are gone. The UFA market continues getting thinner. It’s hard to see how they can replicate the success of another Western Conference Finals with a roster that won’t be as good on paper, and still needs a proper fix on the blueline². If Dallas loses next year in the first or second round, I suspect that Stars fans would riot. Would that be fair to Gulutzan, knowing he’s working with less?

Maybe. Maybe Gulutzan is less stubborn than Pete DeBoer. Maybe he tweaks the roster in just the right way. After all, he may not be working with what DeBoer had, but he still has a lot to work with. It’s a weird hyperspace. Gulutzan may be exactly what Dallas needs to get that extra edge, or he may be yet another roadblock on a roster that already has some, which could only compound the ability of this team to take that next step. Either way, it’s hard to see how this Dallas team takes the next step — not just over a team like Edmonton and Vegas (which just leveled up with the Mitch Marner deal), but over a team like Florida — regardless of what potential value Gulutzan adds.

I hate not having an opinion. But I hate having the wrong opinion even more. So I’ll give Gulutzan the benefit of the doubt, and you should too.

1. I promise you this is worth a paid subscription. Just saying.

2. I know people love Nils Lundkvist and his potential, but Lundkvist next to Esa Lindell in the top four is not the move.