A TL;DR Dallas Stars Mailbag
Way too many Stars answers for too many Stars questions from technical systems talk (DeBoer vs. Bowness and how Robertson could benefit) to homecooking with Radek Faksa...it's all here.
Welcome to my first ever Stars mailbag! I’ll keep this intro short since I answered every question. First off, thank you to everyone who participated. Second, if you didn’t participate, start unfollowing me now. Third, I’m obviously kidding and four: don’t be shy.
Quick note: D Magazine is still very much my home, and Mike is still very much the best editor/collaborator I could ask for. ‘Puck Salvos’ is just a place for non-Texas hockey content but probably still a lot of Texas hockey. And a lot of digressions.
First off, thank you Jason for your totally irrelevant questions. I see completely why that first sentence exists.
Q1: My knowledge of European food comes mostly from YouTube Surstromming reactions. To be fair, it looks better when a Swedish math teacher randomly films himself preparing it properly so what I’m saying is that I’m gonna follow my reptilian brain on this one and ignore a lot of players for illogical reasons. Except one: Radek Faksa. Why? He comes from the country that gave us kolaches. As a breakfast man, I’d imagine this would bring me great pleasure. Plus he’s associated with “licking the gravy” which tells me he knows a good, grimy place for biscuits and sausage gravy. Faksa and I may have our differences about his on-ice play, but not when it comes to food.
Q2: The obvious answer is Faksa, but since I’m dreaming about a kolache heaven, my answer is actually Joel Hanley. Is it because he’s bad? On the contrary. To me the problem with Hanley is that for whatever bizarre reason, Dallas is willing to play him the playoffs, and then sit him in the regular season. They trust him when it matters most, but not when it matters least. The hell is going on? As a result, more interesting players like Dallas Player, Ben Gleason, and Thomas Harley (who was scratched for Hanley against Calgary in the playoffs) get less looks. Enough on that.
First off, thank you Mahi for asking about my Russian child.
I’m gonna say ‘no’ he does not. That might sound shocking given the unhealthy amount of words I’ve written about him but here’s the asterisk: Gurianov is the proverbial soft peach. Like Buchnevich, Roslovic, Nichushkin, Milano, DuClair…and the many other players before him, it takes a gentle hand to get them going. Does that mean I believe Gurianov needs the cliched “change of scenery” which is typically code for “team X didn’t have the patience”? Not necessarily. Nor does it mean I think Gurianov isn’t capable. We’re talking about a forward who scored 20 goals his rookie year with absolute dogshit usage. How quickly we forget…
We’re not just talking about potential; we’re talking about recent history. But the fact that Dallas is always teetering on the edge of being competitive or not makes this a hostile environment for him. I expect DeBoer to give him a better chance than Bowness, but DeBoer is still a hockey coach: he’s gonna like some guys more than others, and Gurianov just doesn’t fit a His Guys kind of profile.
The other factor is Dallas’ offense. As long as Dallas leaves the Hintz line intact, there won’t be a single combination that allows him to play more comfortably because not a single forward below Hintz and Friends can drive a line. I don’t expect Gurianov to perform bad. I just don’t think he’ll stand out, and everyone will say “see I told you so” instead of “maybe there’s another way.” As always, I’ll be rooting for him. I wouldn’t call him a nuanced player, but I think his game has way more nuance than fans (or the organization for that matter) like to think.
First off, thank you Robby for being a professional (unlike Jason).
Robertson. For some reason, years of “you’re not a hockey coach…Hitchcock knows what he’s doing” which turned into Montgomery “knows what he’s doing”, which turned into Bowness “knows what he’s doing” - has given people the impression that coaching and usage have little to no impact despite seeing complete transformations of players under better tutelage with Cole Caufield under Marty St. Louis vs Ducharme or Vancouver under Boudreau versus Green. Coaching is not just about the Xs and Os of hockey systems, which most coaches have a deep knowledge of. It’s also about human decision-making, which most coaches (like all humans) have deep biases toward. How they apply that knowledge, and how that knowledge turns (or doesn’t turn) into decisions aren’t always informed by the same principles. Look at Cody Eakin under Ruff. Eakin didn’t provide what Ruff wanted (offense) because Ruff didn’t believe in Eakin specifically; he believed in the idea of Eakin; that Eakin could be a safety valve next to Benn and Seguin…just in case. Maybe I’ve lost whatever point I was trying to make, but here’s the more technical answer:
Image and analysis courtesy of the fantastic Jack Han:
Robertson as the F2 in a system (right) where he’s looking for tap ins from better angles with two defenseman allowed to BOTH pinch versus a system that asks Hintz to start preparing for the counterrush (left) while he lingers arbitrarily around the net for aimless rebounds? I’ll call it here: he’s gonna break 100 points.
First off, thank you Wes for doing that thing James Gandolfini does to Dennis Hopper’s hand in True Romance right before he’s iced by Christopher Walken.
In all seriousness, I think Faksa can be made useful. I don’t know why Dallas treats this like multiple brane string theory. He was good with two quick, rush oriented wingers in Roussel and Hemsky. He was bad with Cogliano/Comeau/Raffl/Glendening quick feet, and stone hands. Hook Faksa up with Peterson and Marchment (which I hate, because I’d rather see Marchment-Benn-Gurianov) and you’ll be looking at a refreshed young man.
The problem I’ve always had with Faksa is that his skills don’t link well with others. Look at Lars Eller. Nick Paul. Backlund. Kampf. Pageau. Eriksson Ek. Schenn. Staal. Even the most ‘basic’ third line centers have certain skillsets that can interlink with their wingers, whether it’s Eller or Kampf’s speed, Pageau’s passing, Paul’s subtle puck movement, etc. Faksa has none of those. Just NONE (comparably speaking). That makes me think Dellandrea (similar to Schenn), Damiani (similar to Eller), Johnston (his final form won’t be Backlund but I think that’s how he profiles early until we realize he’s Couturier +) will offer actual three zone play...not just defense from an offensive posture i.e. A One Way Player.
First off, thank you Joe Bob Jones for being long for this world. Not many of us are.
Yes! This was always the confusion over why Dallas stuck with Bowness despite the prospects they kept drafting. But let’s paint a beautiful picture together for your 70th birthday.
Jason Robertson - Wyatt Johnston - Logan Stankoven
Mason Marchment - Roope Hintz - Mavrik Bourque
Jacob Peterson - Riley Damiani - Denis Gurianov
Ayrton Martino - Fredrik Karlstrom - Matej Blumel
Miro Heiskanen - Lian Bichsel
Thomas Harley - Artyom Grushnikov
Jacob Holmes - Christian Kyrou
Yes, I’m splitting up Robertson and Hintz because that’s the future IMO. (I’m also assuming Dellandrea goes in a trade package.) I’m a big believer in Grushnikov as a modern Matvichuk type, even on his weakside, which he has experience with, as does Bichsel. I thought about putting Jack Bar over Kyrou, but did you read my piece on him? His ceiling is mf’ing sky high. Also I think Holmes is a darkhorse for the swiss army knife someone like Kyrou will need.
First off, thank you Lesbiannoyed for asking my favorite question! (and having a great handle)
Jamie Langenbrunner. We know that a player’s peak production years are between 22-25. Dallas had Langenbrunner from ages 19-26. During that time, Langenbrunner was more or less a 30-50 pt winger (even placed 9th in the Calder race in 1997). Good, but nothing crazy. From ages 31 to 35 with New Jersey he scored 60 points thrice! I think the numbers make a strong case for Langenbrunner being held back by Dallas’ system (or really the era, I should say) and what we know about just basic probability. He had moves, a booming shot we didn’t see enough of in Dallas, and quietly did smart things. He’s absolutely an 60-80 point winger in today’s game.
First off, thank you Henri because you’re always thoughtful, and for making great book recommendations. I’ve got ‘The Dawn of Everything’ on the way and in the mail!
What makes Klingberg’s absence so fascinating is just how much it changes the role of almost everyone involved:
Can Heiskanen drive offense the way Klingberg did?
Can Lindell anchor a duo all by himself?
My instinct is to say ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ I do believe Heiskanen has more offense in him. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him score more than Klingberg’s 67 points in the very near future. But if that happens, I think we can comfortably say that Miro did so because he got prime minutes with Dallas’ best forwards in a system that wasn’t so restrictive. Again: usage, usage, usage. It matters. Yes, Klingberg scored 67 points in Hitch’s system. Hitch also trusted Klingberg completely, playing him the most minutes of any defender. Under Bowness, Klingberg was Dallas’ third most used defender.
As for Suter, I won’t entertain the rumormill except to note Tony Abbott’s really great breakdown of the drama in Minnesota. For now, we have no indication that Suter has been the kind of guy in Dallas he’s been speculated to be in Minnesota (or Nashville).
Beyond that I think it’s fine for players to have atypical personalities that aren’t an affront to humanity (see Tony DeAngelo). Suter seems like a sharp - if blunt - guy, and I think there are times when we get to see the bones of what once made him a truly special hybrid defender: a problem solver in all three zones who just doesn’t have the legs he used to after his Achilles injury. Do I think he’s been good? Dig beyond the shot metrics, and no, I don’t think he has, nor will he get better but that’s a question you didn’t ask so I’m not sure why I’m suddenly answering it.
First off, thank you Zach for letting me graphic design rant.
My editor, Mike Piellucci, said it best: the Stars logo is the turkey sandwich of sports logos. Dallas'‘ logo stands out so much because it’s basic with a side of Basic. You can do cooler things with a Shark or a Penguin than you can a…star. But I do believe Dallas deserves to be graded on a curve. Does anyone really think that if Toronto were the Toronto Stars they wouldn’t be anything other than a lazy ass blue Star? It’s the same principle with hockey nicknames where they always just add y’s and er’s to the end of names: minimal effort, zero artistry.
First off, thank you Brayden for nerding out with me with some prospect talk.
Q1: Not likely. Because he’s not good enough? On the contrary. His ceiling might be higher than Johnston’s. But Bourque plays a cerebral game; centered around solving problems, sequencing movement, and finding the open man. Remember how Robertson looked with Caamano and Kero? As long as they’re giving him looks on the 4th line, he won’t stand out the way he can. That’s why someone like Dellandrea or Damiani are more likely to fit: they’re able to play energetic shifts on energetic lines. Bourque needs kings and queens. Not pawns and horses.
Q2: Yes and no. I think Dallas will score more goals because the system will allow it. The real question isn’t whether they’re replicating the points they lost from Klingberg, but whether they’re replicating the performance they lost from Klingberg. As in, can they replicate his carry outs, his transitions, his entries, his power play efficiency and the way he weaponized all east and west of the top of the offensive zone, etc. If they split the Hintz line up, yes, they can. The reason I routinely die on this hill is that I trust Robertson to create offense for others, as I do Hintz. I don’t trust that some magical connection will fall from the sky and spark between Seguin and Glendening, or Benn and Faksa. There’s no puzzle without Robertson and Hintz away from each other that ends with Secondary Scoring.
First off, thank you Drew for a lowkey tricky question.
Hockey people have a lot in common: they’re part of the echo chamber. Whether it’s scouts, GM’s, or agents, they follow trends until the trends die. Just look at the summer that produced big raises for Nurse, Jones, and Werenski. This summer it’s been the deemphasis on scoring. A lot of really good wingers got pretty weak deals compared to big burly defensemen like Chiarot and Gudbranson. Maybe teams still feel like Tampa’s blueline was the gold standard. Point being, I think they misjudged the market. However, we’re still seeing the market adjust. I don’t doubt that a ton of teams will be in on Klingberg once the cap picture has shrunk to a clearer picture, and once Klingberg’s new agent gets him what he’s willing (or will have to) to settle for (my money’s on Ottawa).
First off, thank you Chase for believing in Harley more than Dallas.
I hate saying this but it’s really on Harley. I hate saying that because I feel like teams can do more to build confidence in players. It doesn’t always have to be on the player. Coaches, whether they favor offense or defense or understand how to manage the dynamic between the two always err on the side of certainty. With Miro, Suter, Lindell, and Hakanpaa - you know what you’re getting. Harley’s still a player finding his own comfort zone. His roving style will also depend on the forward lines. If he’s getting minutes with Faksa and Glendening, he’ll struggle. If not, he might struggle less.
While I think your suggestion is exactly the kind of move that helps a young player (look at Byram in Colorado getting a top four look with Manson and how that blossomed), Harley’s in an uphill battle here. If he can focus less on whether he can play up or down the lineup, and more on tapping into his puck pressure instincts one play at a time, then maybe he finds his way up there. You gotta think with Klingberg gone, there’s at least a parallel universe where Harley is given the greenlight to do Klingbergian things.
First off, thank you Justin for being arguably my most active and loyal follower.
Sorry Justin for making this probably my shortest answer but I answered most of this at D Magazine. Only thing I’ll add here is that I don’t consider Dellandrea a lock at all. Yes, he looked great next to Benn and Seguin during a high stakes Game 7 contest. But still, one game in the regular, and one in the postseason is not even a cameo. With DeBoer having a fresh perspective, it’s possible he loves Dellandrea’s hardnose style. But it’s also possible that Ty is completely outplayed by Johnston and Bourque. Not only are both more talented, but they’re also two-way players.
First off, thank you Tyler for being a fellow writer in arms (hands?).
You can’t come at me with this without some sort of taxonomic rigor. What if Oettinger is part of the Pteronura genus in Brazil? Those things are brutal. So yea, I’m taking on 100 otter sized Oettingers and they’ll be taking a lot of knees (sorry Otter…it’s nothing personal).
None of the above. Here’s the thing. It’s not a Calder curse: it’s a “we need to win now” curse. When you look at most Calder winners - Seider, Pettersson, Barzal, Matthews, Ekblad, MacKinnon - there was zero pressure for them to help their teams win each game because they were on then-rebuilding teams. Dallas, being the Will They Won’t They team that they are, doesn’t have time for rookie mistakes. Bowness even admitted this phenomenon when talking about Peterson and Harley, arguing that if Dallas were comfortably in the playoff picture, they could get more playing time. As long as the Stars keep trying to nickel and dime their way to contention, a young man’s mistakes will have greater weight.
First off, Thank you Chaos Eater for a very fun question that is either intentionally or unintentionally packed with lots and lots of subterfuge.
I’m gonna say ‘under.’ The difference is that Dallas should be a good team. The broad effect of having a coach who doesn’t treat offense like a dental syringe, and the really good prospects Dallas has should make them consistent. Gaglardi is clearly on his last nerve with Benn and Seguin, but to me the real test will be how Dallas responds if they make the playoffs and lose in the first round again. That will shatter their perception of what it means to be ‘built for the playoffs’ which is the actual mirror Dallas should be looking in. Not a pair of buyer’s remorse cards.
We’ve kind of touched on this already but adding to that - it’s easy to understate just how good Miro is that he does what he does on his backhand on the breakout. Miro makes it work because his edgework is some of the best in the game and because he’s an elite puckhandler (you kind have to be when you can hold onto to the puck at the speeds he reaches). The point here is that Harley’s a really good skater, but his angles aren’t as good. He’s a solid puck handler, but he can’t dangle in a phone booth. It might matter less to Miro to have less access to better vision and positioning but Miro isn’t most players and Harley sure as hell ain’t Miro.
Sooner or later I’ll do a full write-up of Lindell because I’m probably the worst offender when it comes to ignoring the nuances of his game. My advise to people who think I’m crazy or “hating” is to do an exercise: put yourself in scouting shoes, and tell me what you see. What do you see when he shoots or passes? What do you see when he’s shoulder-checking or tracking? What do you see with the lanes he breaks out of the zone with? What do you see in his mechanics? How well does he win puck battles, and recover dump-ins? What’s he like in the neutral zone? The offensive zone? Etc.
I think Lindell is a good static defender in a game that’s increasingly more dynamic. Having said that, he has a really good wrister, which has been evident since he was drafted. It’s ironic that the player he is now is not the player they thought they were getting at the draft. You see this in Lindell’s shift from plodder to threat when he activates. He’s not creative, but he can plow through a single lane with power, as we saw vs. Minnesota. I could absolutely see Lindell morphing into a more productive player because that’s what we saw in the Liiga, and the AHL. My problem with morphing Lindell into a more modern d-man is that offensive production and offensive performance are not mutually inclusive; you may get him to score more points, but is he driving play? As for parings:
Suter-Heiskanen
Lindell-Hakanpaa
Harley-Miller
Suter gets the red carpet, Hakanpaa gets the look he was starting to get in the Calgary series, and Miller gets to babysit just like he did in Buffalo with Jacob Bryson.
First off, thank you Pops…wait…Pops? Shouldn’t you be cooking mom some fideo you extremely online dog you?!
I want to say yes, but I really think three things are working against him, even more than the cap 1) Benn and Seguin’s contracts 2) Klingberg’s game this year and 3) this playoff obsession with physicality. They know what it’s like to hand out an albatross now, and they probably didn’t like that his deterioration coincided with a public contract dispute (regardless of what actually caused that deterioration). Then there’s the playoff blueline stuff. People point to Colorado, but Colorado isn’t the team that just made three finals. GM’s still see Tampa as the model to build a blueline, for better or worse. So the way Klingberg withered, the public unrest, the desire to have “snarl” on the backend…it’s just too much iceskating uphill for him at this point.
First off, thank you Alan for a great question. I know you’re a loyal follower despite having no Twitter avatar, which admittedly doesn’t deserve condemnation but is something I believe you should change because you seem like good people.
Mike was a big part of one of my favorite D Magazine pieces: how and why Dallas started out so bad last year, and then began a stretch where they were so good. If you’ve read it, you know what I’m talking about - home versus road success and the influence of line changes on shot metrics. I had the idea to write it when I noticed Hitchcock’s team was bad on the road. While Hitch and Bowness played different systems, the emphasis on defense was still strong. My gut tells me that defensive systems struggle more on the road because their strategies are so easily undercut by last change. DeBoer’s a little more in-between so I don’t expect the same result. Nonetheless, six of their first 10 games are on the road: NSH, TOR, MTL, OTT, BOS, LA.
It’s worth noting how few teams are actively tanking this year. OTT was never a gimme even at their worst (as we saw first hand this year) but with the way Dorion has been running game on everyone with the DeBrincat trade and Giroux signing? LA getting Fiala (and Doughty back), NSH getting McDonagh (and Nino!), MTL under St. Louis…Dallas doesn’t have a single easy matchup, or at minimum, an outright gimmie. I think they’ll break even though. Their home games are more manageable and Dallas has a tendency to surprise teams like TOR (especially with their blueline…which I honestly think is flat out overrated despite how much Maple Leaf fans swear by it). As for your second question, it’s definitely Johnston for reasons I’ve discussed. When Marc Savard was rumored to in the running for the head coaching gig, insiders speculated it was because DAL is super bullish on creating room for Johnston and giving him every opportunity. It helps that he plays such a hyper-diligent game in all areas.
For everyone that participated - once again - thank you!