Breakfast Salvos: Bad Logan Stankoven Arguments, Seguin's On-Ice BFF, and Original Miro Heiskanen Art

Preseason hockey is actually the worst.

Fans are wrong. The offseason is not the worst time of the year for watching hockey: preseason is. What could be worse than not watching hockey than knowing that real hockey – hockey with top prospects and everyday NHLers – is being played, and having no means with which to watch it?

It’s an odd juxtaposition of events, between Australia being able to see live hockey (not to mention one of hockey’s frontrunners for this year’s Calder, Logan Cooley) involving NHL teams while NHL markets don’t even have illegal ways to watch NHL players. That doesn’t mean the NHL is wrong to grow hockey in Australia. Hockey should be for everyone. Hell even Mexico has a real league.

But it’s a tough pill to swallow, broadly speaking. I know fans complain about not seeing these games, as they should. But games require proper staffing. With stations like Bally going bankrupt, there’s no money to be made. That’s what sucks. It feels like a dark time for hockey coverage. In order to watch a talent like Logan Stankoven, broadcasts can’t afford to showcase him. In order to read from talented writers, you have to wade through the muddy SEO waters affecting places like The Athletic. Hockey has never been more fun, and yet fans are less plugged-in than ever. Information has never been more accessible, and yet viewers are denied more stories than ever.

The reasons for this are too many to count: the NHL’s failure to grow the game (not to mention all the recent skullduggery), venture capital thinking the sports beat could turn a profit, local coverage failing to adapt (or getting bullied out the business), etc, etc, etc. So yea: preseason hockey sucks. Sorry to depress everyone, but I take hockey way too seriously.

On to the salvos!

What the Logan Stankoven Discussion Misses

When it comes to Logan Stankoven, I’ve made myself quite clear: he’s NHL-ready. Full stop. Granted, there are a few caveats so I hope the nuance of my position doesn’t get lost, but let’s talk my favorite subject: philosophy. No matter where I go, no matter what corner of the internet I’m on, the most common argument against Stankoven making the roster is this.

“But not everyone can do what Wyatt Johnston did.”

No shit. Listen, I apologize in advance if you’ve used that line and feel insulted. Hell I’m pretty sure I’ve used that line. That’s not my intention. My problem is with the logic. What’s the connection between Johnston’s accomplishments, and Stankoven’s readiness? Stankoven is either ready or not. Talking about Johnston feels like a disservice to the work Stankoven has been putting in. All I get out of that refrain is “lightning doesn’t strike twice.” Except a) it does and b) who said Stankoven had to be lightning? Can he not be thunder? Or rain? (Hell yea I’m deliberately choosing from the three storms of Big Trouble in Little China.)

The position that Stankoven can’t do what Johnston did is no more peripheral to the subject of NHL-readiness than the position that Bichsel can’t do what Heiskanen did. Doesn’t make Bichsel any less interesting as an NHL option does it? Exactly. Especially since Stankoven is basically part Honey Badger.

That’s ultimately my issue. The Stankoven discussion never feels like it’s about Stankoven. It feels like it’s about the endless mental gymnastics teams will make to avoid playing too many rookies, or for that matter, hockey’s Freudian obsession with size. Dallas can’t be sure Stankoven won’t be great. But they can be sure that someone like Radek Faksa will be usefully mediocre and overpaid (sorry Radek). Instead of comparing Stankoven to Johnston, why aren’t we talking about his potential contributions as a middle six center? Why aren’t we talking about how he can elevate Dallas’ rush attack? Why aren’t we talking about the forwards that could benefit from his playmaking? What about his skills within his system, and whether his forecheck might (or might not) accentuate it?

Those are the relevant questions. Stankoven is nothing like Johnston as a player. So let’s judge his potential on the basis of who he is rather than lazily compare archetypes (i.e. goal-scoring rookies).

That’s not to say it’s crazy to keep Stankoven out of the NHL lineup. I think there are good reasons to let him play in the AHL, like developing chemistry with others in big minutes, and be challenged by a class that’s increasingly up there with the big non-NHL leagues. (Compliments of Chace McCallum, who is a good hockey follow.)

There are also good business reasons to keep him out from the NHL, since Sam Steel and Craig Smith are quality veteran players who deserve to see if their contracts are worth it. Again, Dallas has an NHL-quality lineup up and down the roster. But let Stankoven be judged by his on-ice play. If you want to talk about Stankoven, take it to the ice, por favor.

The good news is that it doesn’t look like Stankoven is gonna let anyone stop him.

Who Belongs Next to Seguin?

Not Duchene. At least in the long run.

(IMO)

Here’s the thing. Duchene is not good defensively. Marchment is not good defensively. Seguin is only okay defensively.

Sure, they’re gonna score. And that’s great. But when the scoring stops, where will they excel? Shutting opponents down on the backcheck? Winning territorial battles in the neutral zone to give other lines offensive zone starts? (Fun sidebar: the concept of a player’s ability to forward territory to others is something Micah Blake McCurdy is currently studying.)

I’ve talked a lot about Dallas’ offense paradox: they score a lot despite lacking a scoring process.

That’s what Marchment-Seguin-Duchene represent to me: expedience rather than dominance. They’ll get opportunities, but will they tilt the balance? They’ll be dangerous, but will they be consistent? These things matter in the long run, because it’s the long run that either validates or exposes a process.

They say that this is “a good problem to have.” And they’re right. But a good problem is still a problem. I know that sounds overly combative, but I’m not saying good problems are actually bad problems. I’m saying problems still need solutions. Dallas has one year to figure out if Duchene is what levels up their offensive process. Are they gonna explore what works best, or settle for what works well?

Sidebar: I’ve already proposed an alternative in the DBD piece, but let me just say that splitting up the Hintz line should be on the table, no more than ever.

Ryan Konzelman presents: Miro Heiskanen!

It’s been awhile since I’ve shared one of these. It’s kind of hard to find a good spot for them during the offseason, so because I can’t wait to share these, I’m sharing them.

Heiskanen’s portrait.

And full body image.

I get a Blanka-from-Street Fighter kind of vibe with this one, which I think is kind of awesome.

P.S. I’ll be on Starcastic Remarks tomorrow at 10:30pm. Be sure to check it out.