The Discourse: What to do with Mavrik Bourque?

It's complicated.

With only seven points in 33 games, time’s not up for Mavrik Bourque to show the Dallas Stars something more than some hard work and potential. He is, after all, just a rookie. But it’s starting to feel that way. Isn’t it?

I don’t know. That’s really a question for the Stars organization. Do they feel Bourque is underperforming relative to expectation, or underperforming, in general? What’s the shelf life for a rookie’s struggles in a season where Dallas is positioned to push their chips in thanks to Tyler Seguin’s $9+ million in LTIR money? Does Dallas interpret Bourque’s lack of production with him struggling, or do they interpret Bourque’s lack of production as harmless development pains? He’s a rookie, dude. On a team that has struggled to score.

Sure. And I’m not in a position to answer those questions. But if the discourse is any indication, we have some clues. Let’s start with Sean Shapiro’s modest proposal: sending Bourque back down to the AHL.

On the surface, it’s not a bad one. Bourque’s minutes were steadily going up thanks to a brief run on the top line with Jason Robertson and Roope Hintz. As I wrote, they were good—albeit in 37 minutes—despite the lack of production. Dallas was outshooting the opposition 27 to 19 with them on the ice, boasting decent shot quality control (53 percent expected goal share), and strong overall puck possession (57 percent in share of shot attempts with them on the ice). But once Pete DeBoer pulled the plug on that line, bumping Evgenii Dadonov to the top and Bourque down to a trio with Sam Steel and Logan Stankoven, those minutes stalled.

Don’t be surprised if they actively start going down. He even appeared to get demoted versus Utah, when Oskar Bäck, who scored a goal on Saturday, starting centering Sam Steel and Logan Stankoven in the final stanza. If less minutes will threaten to diminish his confidence, the logic goes, then why not give him lots of minutes and a leadership role back in Texas in order to restore said confidence?

Maybe. I’m not sure I buy this. It’s not that it can’t work. Rather, it feels like it would take a lot of work for that long game logic to manifest. The confidence angle is somewhat nebulous. In both scenarios, whether less minutes in the AHL, or more minutes in the NHL, the message is the same: “you are not good enough for the NHL, at this moment.” Is that the message Bourque necessarily receives? Maybe not. I’m reminded—humor me—of Nucky Thompson’s exchange with Gyp Rosetti from Boardwalk Empire.

• “Don’t take it personally,” Nucky tells him.

• To which Gyp replies. “But everybody’s a person, right? So how could they take it any other way?”

Even if the message to Bourque is that he’s still a part of their long term plans, it would be hard for him to read even the most encouraging messages as anything other than a demotion. He’s already earned his way into an NHL roster. Now he’s about to be taken off of one.

However, there’s another reason; more important, but it has less to do with Bourque. It’s not so much a reason, as a question: is Bourque the kind of player Dallas wants right now to begin with? It certainly doesn’t seem like it. Read between the lines of Robert Tiffin’s excellent daily coverage, and Bäck’s emergence comes across as something fresh in the eyes of the coaching staff. In fact, ignore what’s between the lines and read what’s on them. DeBoer said it himself: Bäck’s game is simpler, and simpler games translate more readily than for scorers “if they translate at all.”

That addendum from DeBoer feels almost damning. It’s not directed at Bourque, but there’s plenty of subtext.

A digression: is Bourque struggling, or just struggling to score?

Assessing Bourque’s performance feels more than a little unfair. An injury to start the season, and a lot of line juggling put him behind the eight-ball. More than that, the entire team has struggled to score. It would be quite silly to lump Bourque into a group of all-stars (Robertson, Hintz, and Heiskanen), veterans (Benn, at least early on), and rookie phenoms (Johnston and Stankoven) all suffering from the exact same problem.

To some fans—especially those not used to seeing him before he made the cut—Bourque might be a hot mess. He doesn’t always look confident, which felt like the hallmark of his game everywhere else. He’s been “bullied” on several occasions, first by Max Pacioretty, and then by Marcus Foglino. He’s supposed to be a scoring forward, but hasn’t scored despite ample opportunities to do so. The playmaking hasn’t been there, the shooting hasn’t been there, and neither has much of anything else.

First off, I take issue with the “ample” in opportunity. Yes, Bourque started the year with Benn and Stankoven, and got an extended look on the top line. But they weren’t as extended (88 minutes) as the time he’s spent in the bottom six (104 minutes). The end result is a player whose aesthetic doesn’t match the performance: a defensively responsible forward.

Click here to learn more about Goals Above Replacement, or GAR.

What’s interesting is that, digging deeper into his performance metrics (Regularized Adjusted Plus Minus), he actually rates better defensively than Bäck despite the reputation the Swedish winger has already earned from the coaching staff.

Click here to learn more about Regularized Adjusted Plus Minus, or RAPM.

Because RAPM is a metric that measures performance more than impact, it’s worth sticking around to learn more about the so-called black box. Think of RAPM like a plus-minus of a player’s shifts, in terms of observed offense, expected offense, possession offense, expected offense allowed, and possession offense allowed. The plus-minus of those shifts are isolated against influencing factors such as score state, strength state, zone starts, home versus away, etc. So sure, Bäck has more points. But points do not equal offense. Outcomes, after all, are not always sustainable.

If it seems like I’m turning this into a Bourque vs. Bäck octagon fight, then here’s the plot twist. For one, if I felt like this was a decision between offense and defense, I absolutely would. Teams galaxy brain this kind of stuff all the time: see Team Canada (how fitting too that a small, scoring winger in Teddy Stiga scored the overtime winner for Team USA). But this isn’t it. The fact that Bourque’s offensive performance rates below replacement level is hardly an argument in his favor. However, Bäck’s faceoff plus-minus is certainly an argument in his favor. He’s sixth on the team, having won 37 faceoffs and lost 32 for a plus-5 differential. Conversely, Bourque has won 54 and lost 75 for a whopping minus-21 (!). While I find faceoffs to be a lazy shorthand for hockey analysis¹ that kind of disparity is extremely significant when all other things are equal. (Because they’ve played most of their minutes at EV, gamestate doesn’t change much, with Bäck still being plus-5 and Bourque minus-20 at EV.)

The other thing is that just as the aesthetics don’t quite match the performance in Bourque’s case—playmaker, turned mini Radek Faksa—Bäck’s game highlights a similar illusion: fourth line grinder, turned playmaker. His center lane passing is elite with a capital E, and he’s setting up a lot of shots in general per Corey Sznajder’s tracking data.

Click here to learn more about Corey Sznajder’s A3Z tracking data.

Not to mention, he’s going bonkers on the forecheck, forcing turnovers and dump outs on the forecheck at one of the highest rates in the league. However, he’s also gaining possession. While I typically find that offense lower in the lineup is more important, every now and then you get one of those fourth liners who is territorially dominant, like William Carrier, and Bäck kind of fits that mold here. Bäck and Bourque might be drastically different players in terms of expectation, but they are shockingly similar when it comes to execution. In summation: I don’t believe Bourque is struggling at all. In fact, he’s excelling in key areas for a good defensive winger. But he is definitely struggling to score; worse for him, he’s contributing in unexpected ways while failing to deliver in expected ones — always a hard shift.

Disclaimer: These stats aren’t meant to settle a debate. It’s too early in their careers to treat these calculations as anything other than preliminary. However, that doesn’t make them any less reflective of what we’re currently seeing, and they’re far more important for genuine reflection than simply looking at each other’s respective box scores.

Who cares about the future when the present offers the possibility of a Cup?

If you’re a fan of Bourque and want to see him stay, perhaps the most important reason why Bourque being sent down won’t do much, is that it further distances him from the team’s mission this year. Even if Bourque goes down and does what he did last year: what difference will it make? It won’t change Dallas’ plans to bring in a veteran at some point, whether we’re talking a Mikael Granlund, Brock Nelson, Reilly Smith, or Chris Kreider. In order for Bourque to produce more, he has to be in a spot where his playmaking leverages the skills of others. It’s hard to envision that world if Mason Marchment’s return and Mystery Deadline Add push him right out of the lineup.

However, sending Bourque down to tear up the AHL would serve a different, and more convenient purpose: increasing his value. This is the best argument for sending Bourque down, in my opinion. The Stars would be doing the opposite of what New York did with Kaapo Kakko, a team that was forced to sell low because they let him flounder in the bottom six for far too long until the damage was done, turning the 2019 second overall pick into a third-and sixth-round pick. It’s a pretty easy sell. This kid was the 2022 QMJHL Playoff MVP, and AHL John P. Sollenberger and Les Cunningham Award winner from 2024. We just need to bring in some good veterans for a Cup year.

Unlike Kakko, Bourque hasn’t struggled for years. There’s just enough mystery and question marks on him for a team out of contention to bet on potential. Especially in a league where teams feel like they don’t have time to rebuild; the allure of an NHL-ready prospect is not something other teams contending teams can get away, which would theoretically put the Stars in the front of the (dead)line. One of the benefits of drafting well is having extra trade chips. Carolina has been an excellent drafting team. Having a well-regarded prospect like Ville Koivunen on the table for Pittsburgh last March is the reason why Carolina was able to acquire Jake Guentzel. However, just as the Hurricanes still had forwards like Bradly Nadeau, and Gleb Trikozov, Dallas still has Johnston and Stankoven.

It’s tough to say what Dallas should or shouldn’t do. The Stars are gonna be in a spot next season where they could potentially see departures to Benn, and Duchene, which will further isolate Seguin, who already has the hurdle of coming back from a major surgery. How badly is Bourque needed in that scenario, especially at his cost?

Perhaps the real question is what kind of team is Jim Nill looking to create for this potential Cup winner? Having added size and toughness in the offseason, and not wasting a minute to extend Bäck, it’s hard to imagine Dallas willing to subtract size. While the Stars are not small, they’re not big either, ranking 12th in weight. I’ve always had my own thoughts about teams getting sizepilled like this, but it’s easy to see the many different valid ways in which Bourque could end up getting squeezed out.

This is all speculation, of course. But it’s not idle speculation. Bourque could be leveraged for a Win Now piece, but Dallas could also use this time to smooth his development curve. Maybe sending him back down would do him some good. Maybe it’s better to keep him in the NHL, where he’s quietly contributing, even if it falls short of the expectations he entered with.

Depends on how the Stars view this year. Bourque is the biggest trade chip Dallas has had in years. But his journey is just getting started. Where that journey ends will tell us a lot about which window they find more important: the present. Or the future.

1. This piece from 2023 here at the Stars Stack about Dallas’ faceoff prowess and whether it matters still holds up as an introduction, IMO.