Breakfast Salvos: A precap for Dallas versus New York, the Kaapo Kakko news, and what the Stars can learn from the Rangers

The NHL should be a development league.

I was a big fan of Dallas considering a trade for Kaapo Kakko in the breakdown of Reilly Smith. Unfortunately, so were the Seattle Kraken.

What’s done is done. Or I should say, what’s done was done this week. For those that missed it, Kakko, in response to being healthy scratched, replied by saying “I have not been the worst.”

That’s as damning a comment as a player can make in hockey. Not only is he criticizing his teammates, but he’s criticizing his coach in very fundamental ways. Two days later, New York Ranger general manager Chris Drury, traded him to the Seattle Kraken for Will Borgen, and two picks (one a third rounder, the other a fifth). Vincent Trocheck publicly defending his general manager tells you everything you need to know about hockey’s empire stat right now.

It’s hard not to think back to the Valeri Nichushkin saga. Two former first round picks, struggling to meet expectations, developing profiles running counter to their original profile as scoring forwards turning into defensive grinders — yes, even in that obnoxiously defined “no goals, no penalties” season. The point here is not to open old wounds. The point is to open hockey’s old wound. The NHL is not a development league.

It’s that time again. Thankfully, it feels like this discussion is becoming much more literate in the hockey world. Just look at Rutger McGroarty, exercising more control over a future with a team that had no strategy for his inclusion. Or David Jiricek, who Columbus screwed around to the confusion of everyone. Now even the coaches themselves are finally realizing, “yea that sounds kind of stupid.”

Kakko’s response to being healthy scratched was important for another reason. “It’s easy to pick the young guy and put him out,” he said before drawing back into the lineup versus Nashville. And that’s the problem when an organization adopts a mindset that Win Now requires some arbitrary sacrifice, as if one young player’s mistake could jeopardize the fortunes of an entire team. It also pressures coaches into assessing the weather of player value rather than the climate of player value. One game-changing turnover is worse than fifteen possession-negative shifts, right? But is it? What of the player who never turns the puck over, but will give you fifteen possession-negative shifts? And what is lost in those possession-negative shifts? How many goals begin with weak possession, or bad breakouts that keep a team hemmed into their own zone, resulting in a goal against the following shift? Defeat can be a slow burn. And so can development.

I’m bouncing around here, but here’s the long and short of it: New York is making a mistake. Here’s Kakko versus the other bottom sixers that are about to see playing time over him.

Click here to learn more about how sG works.

None of this is to exalt Kakko, who profiles like a quality third liner and nothing more. He’s easily one of the worst second overalls in at least a decade. There are five players from the 2019 second round alone that I’d pick over him. But a bad pick doesn’t have to mean a bad player. And that’s where nonexistent development hurts players the most. Good development should exist precisely so that teams don’t overreact to the sunk cost fallacy; good development should exist to identify different development rates, and profiles changes. For students, bad behavior can get you kicked out of the classroom, but not bad understanding.

Opportunity and development are not the same thing. Kakko is flawed, and will never live up to the expectations of a second overall pick, but he’s by no means a lost cause. All the Rangers have done is write the book on how to sell low.

How does the Kakko news affect Dallas, and what does it have to do with Mavrik Bourque?

Honestly, I hadn’t considered the Kakko news in relation to Dallas. But now that you ask, I don’t. At least not really. The Stars have become one of the few teams that has found ways to develop at the NHL level, although not without a few bumps and bruises. And not without a shift in their drafting philosophy.

However, I’ve seen fans float ideas for leveraging Bourque as a potential trade piece. As I’ve said before, with literally one or two exceptions, players should never be considered “untouchable.” I’m not opposed to the idea of Dallas trading Bourque, but I’m also not someone who has soured on his play in proportion to last year’s AHL hype. His talent for offense has been completely neutered by being stuck on the fourth line, and despite that, his underlying numbers are showing strong defensive impacts, including his impact on shorthanded defense¹.

The comparison to Kakko is actually quite fitting, because again we go back to being forced to evaluate a player at odds with who we think they are or should be, but not in the detrimental context we might assume. Bourque’s defensive impact is not just the result of black box math either. He’s been an absolute beast in the defensive zone, successfully getting out of the zone and breaking out with possession at an elite level.

Click here to learn more about A3Z data.

That his playmaking — his defining trait in juniors and in the AHL — hasn’t become his calling card would be concerning, except spending so much of his time with grinders is the obvious culprit. Needless to say, like with Kakko, there’s a lot to like, not to mention, reasons to be optimistic. Bourque may or may not develop into the player fans hoped, but he’s hardly had the opportunity. And he’s contributing in subtle ways.

If Dallas, and this is just me speculating, were to move Bourque, it would ideally involve a hockey trade. The players on the market simply aren’t worth the assets it would take to acquire them.

The Ranger lesson

“The Rangers will turn it around.”

No. No they won’t. It’s quite possible they haven’t even bottomed out. They’re literally the sum of their save percentage and nothing else.

Data and visual courtesy of Evolving-Hockey.

I suspect some doomers will see some parallels between Dallas and New York. The Rangers, like Dallas, have been to the Conference Finals in multiple recent seasons. And Dallas, like the Rangers, haven’t looked like a team with a history of elite success. Of course, there are some obvious differences as well. New York hasn’t hit on their late round picks. Dallas has. They’ve also spent a ton of money on their veterans without a core to replace them. In addition, veterans like Mika Zibanejad and Chris Kreider have been awful, which makes the whole thing a house of cards.

However, the broader lesson is still important to remember: progress is not linear. Just because the Stars are supposed to get better doesn’t mean they will. I believe they’re a genuinely good team. But I’m also not sure that should translate to in the postseason. Especially, as Robert Tiffin so eloquently wrote, without truly elite players.

So while it’s easy to look down on the Rangers with or without the benefit of hindsight, all teams live in glass houses in the era of parity.

Precap: Dallas vs. New York

Dallas is the heavy favorite tonight. However, that was the case versus Toronto too. The Rangers have only won three of their last ten. Their current spiral is well-documented. But what’s funny — less funny if you’re a Dallas fan — is that the Rangers are better on the road than they are at home. Meanwhile, Dallas’ sterling home record has taken a few hits. Don’t be surprised if this is another game that defies convention. After all, the Rangers are 6-4 versus Dallas

I still expect the Stars to win this one, however. The top line seems like they’re finally coming on strong(er), and the Rangers called up Matt Rampe to help the team shoot themselves in the foot.

1. Including stronger defensive impacts than Oskar Bäck, it should be noted.