Dallas Stars Traverse City Report Cards

Logan Stankoven. Lian Bichsel. Mavrik Bourque. It was a star-studded cast at Traverse City. How did they do?

I’ve always loved Traverse City prospect tournament. Yes, it’s nice to have hockey back. But I’m a beauty-in-jagged-edges kind of guy. Prospects are inherently more interesting to me than NHL superstars. But that’s ultimately the question, right? Whose game is growing more polished? Who is developing as they should? Perhaps more interestingly, who is able to play beyond their jagged edges and who will be the victim of them?

Overall, it was a good stretch for the Stars-in-training. Dallas went 2-1, beating Detroit and Columbus, and losing to Toronto. It’s hard to take the win over Columbus seriously without four of their biggest names. Nonetheless, how does that Toronto game play out with Bichsel, Grushnikov, Bäck, and Poirier drawing in?

Dallas has a decent prospect pool. It’s not elite, but it’s solid, which is all the more impressive given who the Stars are as a contender at the pro level. However, there are some notable holes. If the tournament made anything abundantly clear, it’s that Dallas is in dire need of wingers. We’ll get to them momentarily but that and their lack of defensive depth stood out.

While these are “report cards” it’s worth keeping in mind that they are report cards for a three-game sample involving a roster of players with little to no chemistry. While my list won’t follow a discernible order, I’ll be following the script in keeping with my DBD rankings.

Logan Stankoven: (a weak) B+

I’ll be writing about Stankoven later this week (paid), but his performance didn’t leave me wanting like others I saw on social media. In a three-game sample, I’m not looking for production; although three points in three games is fine. I’m looking for what they create from shift to shift, trying to imagine how that performance might mesh with higher quality linemates. In that context, I personally felt like he delivered. Spending most of the tournament with Stranges and McDonald did nothing for his game. That’s not to make excuses; just that his abilities were on full display whereas the chemistry was not. When training camp rolls around, don’t be surprised if his production “magically” shows up.

Lian Bichsel: (a strong) A

It’s hard to give Bichsel a more thorough grade with just one contest to his name, but I thought he was excellent. Though profiling like a shutdown defender, he’s not only agile, but creative. He uses his legs and hands to make those little extra moves to beat forecheckers or create space for himself. Offensively, I wouldn’t expect much. He doesn’t have a big wrist shot or a slap shot, but he keeps his head up to find his teammates, and he covers a lot of ice, making reads, and imposing his will. Honestly, I didn’t find a single thing to nitpick. Bichsel is for real.

Mavrik Bourque: (a decent) C

I’m one of Bourque’s biggest stans. At his best, I think his mindfulness is as good as it gets. And like Stankoven, Dallas’ lack of winger depth really hurts his bottom line, not just in terms of production, but in terms of performance. However, even with that in mind I couldn’t help but feel underwhelmed. His puck control, his vision — hell even his energy looked stilted.

One thing I’ll say in his genuine defense it’s that I’m starting to wonder if he isn’t simply a slow starter. He got better as the tournament progressed, and it finally culminated in this tic-tac-toe play with Stankoven.

Though giving him the benefit of the doubt, I would have expected more, and Bourque didn’t deliver. Nonetheless, overall there’s plenty to be excited about. The real test will be his follow-up campaign in Cedar Park.

Christian Kyrou: (a weak) D-

I’m not the person to be talking about Kyrou. I’ll always be bothered by the fact that Dallas probably only ignored Lane Hutson, who just broke HOFer Brian Leetch’s record for most points by an under-19 NCAA defenseman, because he was left handed instead of right. And sure, Hutson has a long way to go himself (I think he’s gonna be a better Sam Girard personally) but Kyrou has an even longer road.

He definitely had moments.

This is where Kyrou excels: his ability to move, and puck handle rushing up ice is his strength. The problem is that forecheckers close on him too quickly, and his play in the defensive zone was a lot of clips like below instead of clips like above.

In grading Kyrou on a curve, I’m trying to ignore his defensive play. The bigger issue to me is that it’s his offensive talent — his puck handling, passing, vision — that’s failing him in the defensive zone. (In case you can’t see, the pass goes right through Bourque’s skates, in part because Kyrou’s lack of separation speed allows the forechecker to pressure him.)

With as much talent as Kyrou has, you’d expect him to shovel it front of Bourque instead of at his ankles. However, he was a constant adventure with the puck, fumbling outlet passes, missing routes, and either doing too much, or doing too little. Small, slower puck movers have an extremely tall task ahead of them, and Kyrou is making it harder on himself.

Tristan Bertucci: (a straight) D

There’s not much to say about Bertucci. He played limited minutes, and constantly struggled in those minutes. As one of the youngest players at the tournament, you don’t want to take too much stock in his performance, but even his skating (his main asset) looked like a level below what he showed in the OHL.

Matthew Seminoff: (a solid) C-

Seminoff started off the tournament playing with Stankoven, and ended it playing with Bourque. He scored two goals, displaying the quick release that I think will serve him well, but outside of that, he wasn’t terribly noticeable. Hopefully player development works closely with trying to make him stronger because Seminoff is the kind of player who could benefit from either bulking up to protect the puck better, or working on his skating to create more space for himself.

Remi Poirier: (a strong) A

Poirier was Dallas’ strongest performer at the tournament. Detroit looked like the better team but Poirier kept them in it. Against Columbus, Dallas looked like the better team, but Poirier added security.

He showed some chops in the reflex department, but he also played the puck better than his defensemen.

Poirier won’t just factor into the AHL lineup, but potentially the NHL too. There’s no reason why he shouldn’t get a few starts if Oettinger or Wedgewood go down to injury. Truth is, Dallas may have a solid duo between Poirier and Matt Murray, but they need to find that out by letting them play. It’s crazy to me how much veteran coaches hang their hat on “win now.” Who GAF if you drop a game or two finding out more about your backups? Better than burning out your starter.

Francesco Arcuri: (a decent) D

Despite recording two points, Arcuri wasn’t super noticeable. His playmaking was apparent (when he was able to), but Dallas was so weak in the bottom six, it was hard to tell how much was on Arcuri, and how much was on his linemates.

Antonio Stranges: (a solid) C+

I’ve been talking a lot about Stranges on Twitter, posting various clips. One thing I’ll say about Stranges is that he busts his ass. For everything. He’s always moving, and always trying. His biggest issue is that, like Gurianov, his speed can’t keep up with his hands. Either he tries to dangle through a player and it doesn’t work, or he tries to pass through a defender, and it doesn’t work. He made awful passes in the Columbus game. But it’s impossible not to like his spirit. Hopefully that spirit aligns with further development at some point.

Artyom Grushnikov: (a strong) A

I’ve been on and off the fence with Grushnikov. I liked what I saw his draft year, but I didn’t like his follow-up season. Maybe it doesn’t matter. He’s a defensive defenseman with silky smooth skating and physicality. He doesn’t need to play complicated. He just needs to play direct. And that’s exactly what he did.

This was quality rush defense from Grushnikov, but he was the way he shook his man in tight that impressed me the most.

Although he didn’t play much in the tournament (his fight took him out for much of the first game), his stickwork proved to be a brickwall for opponents.

His ability to maintain gap control, skate with his attackers, and take away space when needed will keep him in the NHL on depth duty for a long time if he can continue developing.

Matej Blumel: (a weak) C+

As an older prospect, I expected more out of Blumel. He’s a pretty vanilla north/south winger, which is fine. There’s room in the game for vanilla north/south wingers, but for someone who has already played NHL games, he’ll need to show more layers to his game, especially on a team like Dallas already hurting at left wing.

Chase Wheatcroft: (a decent) B-

With three goals, I can’t be too hard on Wheatcroft. He was one of the few players to display strong shooting chops — including a pretty wicked one timer — but outside of his shooting, I didn’t see much. He has decent vision, good drop passes, and a little flair, but nothing noticeable enough to get super pumped. At least not yet. I’m giving him a better grade than most on the basis of what others saw. I know that sounds funny, but unlike all you Eye Testers out there, I need glasses, and I can’t keep track of every single player, every shift, even on re-watch. That I missed something is something I’m willing to concede.

I do wonder how I might view him if he had played all tournament with Stankoven instead of stuck on the bottom six until the last game. He’s someone to keep an eye on. I know this much: Tye Felhaber this man is not.

Kyle McDonald: (a decent) C+

McDonald did one thing and he did it particularly well: protect the puck. He was fluid in transition despite being such a slow skater, and I liked how he had a forcefield around him when he was cycling down low. However, his presence felt like a drag on Stankoven, and his lack of abilities everywhere else left a lot to be desired, especially given his experience.

Brad Gardiner: (a weak) D+

It’s worth remembering his age, but I didn’t like where he was picked with players like Denver Barkey, (who apparently looked good to Charlie O’Connor: former Athletic beat writer for the Flyers, now doing his thing at All Philly) Luca Pinelli, Luca Cagnoni, Albert Wikman all still on board. Needless to say, his performance didn’t change my mind. (Although I felt like he noticed a little bit more creativity with the puck than I expected, hence the plus.)

Angus McDonell: (a decent) C-

Part of my issue with grading the bottom six forwards is that Dallas doesn’t have a ton of depth at this point, so figuring out how much is on the player and how much is on their line’s chemistry is the chicken-or-egg dilemma (probably best to retire this cliche since we know the answer: the dinosaur) I wrestle with. I felt like I noticed Angus’ movement being better than the rest of the bottom six. He seemed more confident with the puck than others too.

Oskar Bäck: (a strong) B-

As the Radek Faksa’s get phased out of modern hockey, players like Bäck leave me skeptical. There’s a place for them, but again, first principles: your players closest players to the net should have something resembling offense beyond “backchecks well.” So color me surprised when he made this pass.

Granted, if he was more confident in his shot he might have chambered it himself, but at least he made the read and successfully got it to an open Arcuri. For players like Bäck to have a future in the NHL, they need to play within themselves, and Bäck, through two games, showed me he’s got a mindfulness about his play I didn’t think was there.

His puck control, and work ethic were on full display this tournament, which made his captaincy feel fitting.

I’m still not sold on him as an everyday NHLer. Although he made some plays, he was also a non-factor offensively for most of it. Even his staunch defense felt a little light for a player with his reputation. Nonetheless, his strength on the puck stood out in a sea of playmakers who, largely, didn’t make plays.

Gavin White: (a mixed) B-

White is a mystery to me, to be honest. I saw some praise for him at various boards, and social media, and I feel like I saw something totally different. I think what stands out about him is that he’s such a solid athlete. He plays bigger than he’s listed (6’1), and his movement is extremely fluid.

However, I wonder of seeing this from a right shot defender has more to do with it (just saying). While White was able to make some plays with the puck, it didn’t feel like a coincidence that the team experienced some of their most punishing shifts with White on ice. (Not for nothing but he was the defensemen body surfing way too early on that 2-on-1 in the Poirier clip above.)

In some ways, White had the opposite problem Bourque did: where Bourque’s problem felt like inactivity, White’s issue is that he was too active. His game felt like sound and fury. I’m giving him a B- though because he also got put in a tough spot. Without Bichsel, he became the number one defender, and his partner (Grushnikov) only played one and a half games, so there’s a reasonable explanation for his erratic play. Also: three points in three games on a team with minimal forward depth is no joke.

Ben Zloty: (a strong) B

Despite being a mere invitee and being scratched the first game, Zloty was extremely noticeable as a puck mover. Take this beautiful little dangle, for instance.

Unfortunately, Blumel botched the pass reception, but Zloty did stuff like this all tournament, using extremely fluid movement to beat defenders, and showing poise in the process. He didn’t play enough minutes for me to have a better handle on the rest of his game, and I’m not sure what he tops out at but I liked what I saw.

Keaton Mastrodonato: (a quiet) B-

Unfortunately Mastrodonator figured into only one game. Not sure what the issue was. I felt like he belonged after the Toronto game. Dallas’ issue with their forward depth isn’t just that they lack scoring, but the lack of speed. Mastrodonato had solid legs, but his meager minutes kept me kept him a minor mystery.

Jacob Murray: (a weak) C+

I felt like a noticed Murray when he kept his game simple, but he was also a player who just seemed overwhelmed in his limited shifts. His movement was better than I expected, and I liked his physicality, but there wasn’t much beyond that.

Bryan Thomson: (a decent) C

He gave up a lot of goals to Toronto, but that was a game I thought the Leafs simply ran away with. Without their top two defenders that night, Dallas got bullied, and Thomson wore the brunt of Toronto’s assault. I feel like the Stars could have lost that game by far more, especially early on.

Justin Ertel: (a weak) D-

Honestly, I feel like an “F” just doesn’t make sense, even in the context of a real reaction, but Ertel and Kyrou were the two players coming dangerously close to that level of criticism. Ertel just seemed lost all tournament, making bad routes, mishandling the puck, and being noticeable for all the wrong reasons. The only halfhearted defense I’d offer is that his line had 0 points all tournament, so again: how much was on him, and how much was on the line?