Breakfast Salvos: Erik Karlsson, Woulda Coulda, Logan Stankoven, and Prospect Rankings

The morning dig-in.

Hola!

First off, I hope everyone is staying hydrated and doing well. And I hope you’re enjoying these. My method of hockey coverage has always favored “analysis” but not every piece can be a 3000-word essay with six different histograms to help argue the point. Still, my instinct is to turn every piece into a 3000-word essay with six different histograms to help argue my point. Perhaps this can work as a meandering middle.

Second, next week will be a modest lull (I’ll do one more of these) but once September rolls around, we’ll be cooking. That’s when I’ll post the Thomas Harley Tales From the Clipped piece (easily the longest I’ve ever spent on one article; but I think you all will have a blast with it). It’ll be for paid subscribers only but don’t worry Stars fans: I’ll unlock the Wyatt Johnston TFTC one that same day. For now, I think that’s the plan in terms of paid vs. unpaid. Paid subscribers will get the in-depth video analysis, and unpaid subscribers will get everything else.

With that in mind, let’s get to these salvos.

Trading for Erik Karlsson would have been bad: A measured response

I saw that the Karlsson debate resurfaced, and listen; I’m the first person to get on my soapbox when I think somebody is wrong on the internet. And so I will. But I’ll make it quick. Mainly because I just want to dispel the notion that the trade would have crippled Dallas’ cap.

Here’s what would have happened in this parallel universe. Both teams would have had to make the money work. Here’s how Kyle Dubas ended up with a $3 million surplus across two trade partners.

• Minus $5 million (Erik Haula)

• Minus $2.7 million (Jan Rutta)

• Minus $4.6 million (Jeff Petry), with $1.5 million retained

• Minus $1.8 million (Casey DeSmith)

• Minus a 1st round pick in 2024 (conditional, top 10 protected)

• Minus a second round pick in 2025

Overnight, Dubas got rid of $14 million in bad money, and two picks. It’s a lot but Haula and Rutta as the veteran centerpieces is an absolute joke. (This is not a swipe at Grier: it’s not his fault Karlsson’s contract was so massive, nor were a lot of people begging to make a deal.) This notion that “you can’t do anything in a flat cap world” is just bollocks. We can talk all day about what trade package it would have taken — likely Faksa, Marchment, and Hakanpaa — and the immediate implications — not being able to sign Duchene — but here’s the long and short of it. The only thing Dallas misses out on if they take on Karlsson’s contract is not being able to bring Pavelski back for another year. (Unless he took a league minimum contract like Mark Giordano.)

Dallas’ only contract worth caring about between now and Benn/Lindell/Faksa coming off the books is Thomas Harley’s. In two years, not even Karlsson’s contract would be big enough to hold them back from keeping all the most important players. Unlike other teams, Dallas is smooth sailing with or without a cap increase.

(This fancy chart compliments of Puck Luck Analytics good guy, Greg Amundsen.)

So by all means, argue whatever you want.

• Maybe you think Karlsson is not better than the duo of Duchene and Pavelski.

• Maybe you think there’s a better way to fix the defense.

• Or maybe you think waiting for internal solutions is the way because Bichsel, Lundkvist, and Kyrou have real potential.

Those are totally fine positions. But what you can’t argue is that Karlsson would have somehow “cripped” Dallas’ future cap or whatever. It wouldn’t. Unless you think Karlsson isn’t good enough, or might fall off soon. If I love anything about Dubas and Vegas, it’s that their moves are a constant reminder that GMs have to sell you a lot of things; mainly tickets and hopes. But if there’s one thing fans should stop buying, it’s feeding fans the notion that the things GMs want the most are the things they can’t have the most.

Personally, I would have been cool with Karlsson + Stankoven and Bourque taking over for the Pavelski/Duchene roles. But I respect that Karlsson + Stankoven and Bourque looks a lot worse if Stankoven and Bourque are not NHL gamebreakers. Speaking of…

Is Corey Pronman the problem…or are you?

I’m currently working on my own prospect rankings for Defending Big D. It’s a lot. And I’ll talk about them in a bit, but first thing’s last: how much do you really care about where Corey Pronman ranks Dallas? (In this case, #17)

I mean, seriously. I’m being a bit of a dick with this question, but yes — I do question how well you know Nashville’s system to say that Dallas definitively deserves to be ranked above them, or how well you know St. Louis’ system to say that Dallas was definitively ranked correctly. Granted, things are different for me. Except for the playoffs, I don’t get to enjoy games like a fan. When I watch hockey, I treat it like a job. I track things, I take notes, I read from people who’ve forgotten more than I’ll ever know, I check the charts (I know; what an insane concept — watch the games, and look at loads of data no human could ever recall all at once to make analysis easier?), and I arrange everything into one readable piece to go live on whatever platform gets its oxygen.

Where was I? Oh right. We’re all victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I know you love the Stars. I do too. But Pronman’s ranking is more or less correct; just with an important asterisk. Let me show you what I mean with a little demonstration. Do me a favor. Look at all the teams around Dallas and tell me what you see. I’ll wait.

…

What did you see? What kind of teams did you see around Dallas? Some rebuilding teams, right? Granted, Nashville and St. Louis are not technically rebuilding, but they’re certainly not contending. What kind of teams did you see ranked way below Dallas? The big dogs, right? Boston, Tampa, Colorado, etc. THAT is the most important takeaway. The Stars have the prospect pool of a rebuilding team, but the Cup prospects of a contender.

Plot twist: I agree that Dallas should have been ranked higher. Mainly because Corey sets up an odd system with his Under-23 method, so it’s hard to take seriously the inclusion of Kappo Kakko and Alexis Lafreniere into New York’s prospect rankings, who both have four (!!!) NHL seasons under their belt. Granted, it’s not the worst system. For example, limiting prospects to “no NHL games” can unduly punish teams that are quick to play their prospects, while rewarding teams that are slow to. Regardless, I don’t think Corey is crazy. #15, which is where I would rank them, is not exactly worlds apart.

A quick word about Logan Stankoven, and a question: who is king of the darkhorses?

So you probably read Sean Shapiro’s piece on Logan Stankoven. And you probably have some strong opinions about it.

And you know what…I’m kind of with you on this one. I keep hearing the same refrain, over and over. Not everyone is like Wyatt Johnston. Not everyone is like Wyatt Johnston. Sure. But not everyone is like Logan Stankoven, either. No offense to Johnston, but since when did he become Connor McDavid? First let me just say that this is not directed at Sean, nor is this an argument for Dallas “screwing up” or something. It’s an argument about vision, and the logic that justifies what is typically the most conservative way possible to develop prospects.

My problem with NHL teams is that their vision relies on an old paradigm: namely that it’s better to have a bad player with experience than an unknown player with none. Teams approach development from an intrinsically negative position — that a player’s failure to establish themselves as the gamebreakers they were at lower levels will set them back. There’s nothing wrong with trying to be safe rather than sorry. But ultimately this approach feeds into bad habits, like putting players on ill-fated lines (what in the seven hells were Dickinson and Comeau gonna do for Robertson when Bowness put that line together?). And this approach further entrenches the dominant assumption that quality of competition > quality of teammates. Even though this is demonstrably false.

Sidebar: I also don’t trust that teams do this for the “greater good” of a player’s psychology. If they really cared about player psychology there would be much better communication between coaches and GMs over the leash these players get.

Ultimately, players are never ready until they are. It’s not against the law to handle them more carefully than others. When the average joes can score 127 points in one calendar year in juniors, then they too can demand the private jet. I have no doubt that if you stuck Stankoven with Duchene on his left wing, and Seguin on his right, he would get to feel like the gamebreaker he was in juniors, and potentially play like that player at the NHL level. That to me, is NHL development. How can you best replicate the setting they succeeded in?

Anyway, one last thing. As I’ve been working through my prospect rankings, I couldn’t figure out something. Does Christian Kyrou belong in the Tier 1 category with Stankoven, or Tier 2 with players like Martino and Stranges?

I’m the first person to bring up Lane Hutson because I think if the handedness were reversed, Dallas takes a flyer on Hutson instead of Kyrou…BUT…a) I’ll give the Stars the benefit of the doubt and b) does anybody realize how absurd Kyrou’s offensive numbers are when it comes to the historical record, just casually showing up Anaheim’s Olen Zellweger? (I don’t think Kyrou is better than the WHL’s top defensemen, mind you, but given his statistical comparison you’d think more people would be pumped)

Historical data per Mitch Brown

I’m not saying Kyrou is a blue chip prospect, per se. He plays the game like a stereotype in some ways, and worse, I don’t know what kind of stomach Dallas will have for him with Heiskanen, Harley, and Lundkvist already on the roster.

Sidebar: This is such a superficial way of evaluating a roster, but whatever. I get it. You need some PKers. What bothers me is less the “why NOT a bunch of puck movers? It worked for Colorado!” factor and has more to do with the fact that Heiskanen is included into a group of puck movers. Heiskanen is pure shutdown defender. Just in a elite puck mover’s body.

But with Kyrou in the AHL, his immediate future on the team will unfold pretty quickly. If he had some Klingberg-esque performance, would Dallas fold him in, or might they lose their appetite on Lundkvist 2.0?

P.S. Kyrou and Lundkvist are, of course, nothing alike but that’s how coaches treat players, right? By what role they fill rather than the specific set of interlinking skills and peculiarities they provide? I see Kyrou’s skating criticized a lot, and I really wish the word “skating” would stop being used for buckets of “good vs bad mechanics” or “fast vs slow”. Kyrou is quick, and agile. He doesn’t have a great top speed, and his mechanics are a little funky. Where that fits into your definition of "good versus bad skating is, I guess, up to you.