Oh for sure. I’m open to moving Bourque because I think Johnston makes it this season and Stankoven makes it the next season. If that’s the case your top 9 is filled with

Robo-Hintz-Pavs
Peterson-Seguin-Johnston
Benn-Stankoven-Marchment

Not even counting Dellandrea who’s ready, plus I’m not counting Kane either. They wouldn’t have much room for Bourque

Actually Andy Strickland talked about it on his podcast too. There’s definitely some smoke there, even if it’s only the smoke from a little Boy Scout fire. There’s some small smoke there

In a vacuum you aren't wrong, but we so very rarely see players of Kane's magnitude get traded. His case will be unique to that of an ordinary pending UFA.

Honestly, the closest comparable I can find for an in-season (or close to in-season) trade for a player of Kane's chutzpah was the Karlsson-to-San Jose trade if you take out the picks associated with conditions on re-signing. Chicago is going to net a massive haul for Patrick Kane, which is why I've been predicating everything off of the Eichel return.

Hold your breath on the Korchinski pick until we know whether or not Lambert starts the year with the Thunderbirds and if Seattle trades for Bedard. Sounds like he wants out of Regina and Korchinski might actually set a WHL defenceman scoring record if he gets that much talent to play with.

I don't think it's that clear cut and dry. Kane would be the best rental to hit the market in a long time. Very rare to see a player with his pedigree and still producing at an elite level, and one that can literally change the outcome of a playoff game hit the market. Kane probably isn't going to back the Hawks into a corner either and submit just one team. He has a very close relationship with the org, does a lot of off ice work with them, and has mentioned how'd he'd liked to work post career with them. I think he submits at least 2 teams if not 3 maybe 4. The market will be high if multiple teams are involved. There is not one team that wouldn't want him come playoff time and because players cap hits are prorated against games played, and Chicago can retain half, his cap hit closer to the deadline will be $2.5M or less. Chicago and Kane will make a decision together, and neither will force the other's hands. Toews, that's a different story in my opinion as he is openly critical of Chicago's direction.

#4 Yes agree as of now on Korchinski but if he hits his ceiling in a few years, then I understand it. I'm not a scout obviously so hoping the scouts see a Duncan Keith type of player with Korchinski. Dach was frustrating to watch. I hope the kid figures it out in MTL, but I'm totally okay betting on Nazar over Dach at this point.

Lazerus is almost always right, not to mention there were a couple more in Chicago that denied any truth to it. I don't think there's any more smoke there other then Dallas calling up and asking the Hawks. Not unusual, but I bet 5 to 10 teams have called the Hawks and asked about Kane just to let them know if and when Kane and the Hawks are ready, they are interested.

That's a very good point. Korchinski could light it up for sure. Even if he does though, hard to say what he turns into in the pros at this point. A #4 D man or #1 or #2?

Very impressed, not many people know that word, but it's not quite the right context. "Chutzpah" means audacity/out-of-place boldness. For example, if a rookie goes over to the coach and tells him "This is how we should run the PP", that's Chutzpah. If a kid says to his mother "You don't know how to cook", that's Chutzpah. Here you seem to mean "Caliber/talent/", which isn't really the right definition of chutzpah. (Sorry for going completely off-topic.)

This is it ^

Anything Pagnotta has reported about Dallas has been 99% 🧢, and when it comes to trades it’s 100% 🧢.

The last time Nill made a trade this big was in 2013, almost a century ago. He’s not a big trader. Plus we aren’t a Kane away from being a contender so it makes no sense.

LMAO I have to laugh at the Hebrew slang lesson

I see the Oilers, Leafs, Rangers, Canes, Panthers all being better potential landing spots at this point; though that could obviously change in a league of so much parity

I'm really overdoing it now, but chutzpah is Yiddish, not Hebrew

I mean it's out of place that Kane continues to be a 100-point player at his age



His NHLe bodes well but it's completely up to him, the Thunderbirds, and Blackhawks to put him in a position to succeed. If he wants that top-pairing, "left-handed John Carlson" billing, he needs to get better with the body and the puck in his own end. Top minutes on what should be a Memorial Cup-bound Seattle team and reps in all situations will develop that. He's probably got a few more inches and a dozen or so pounds to grow into yet so size won't be his limiting factor. I actually really like the pick for the Blackhawks as I was very, very down on this class a whole.

I'm Wyatt Johnston's biggest stan. But I don't think Stars fans are ready for how good Mavrik Bourque is gonna be. Some of his statistical comps are unreal. pic.twitter.com/IWtux7l4u1

— David Castillo (@DavidCastilloAC) July 11, 2022

I’ll add this to give something to talk about when it comes to Bourque.

And you’re saying he won’t recreate his numbers without a proper trigger man, yet Stankoven is better than everyone else that he played with, while also being a sniper.

Edit: and with Robo and Hintz needing a Pavelski replacement in the upcoming years, Bourque could and most likely will take that spot. He has the hockey smarts and vision to play that role, it’s been discussed on a podcast on why that line works well as it does. Hintz is the crazy skilled guy, who is one of the most talented players in the league, Robo and Pavs slow down the game for him because he’s just so fast. Bourque doesn’t have the speed nor shot to just be a dominating player, but he does have great vision and hockey smarts (which makes him a good two way player/playmaker, traits of Pavelski). Only thing missing is the experience and crazy bat in skills, but that will come by time.

Yeah agree, he needs to learn to defend better and be more physical. If he doesn't, he'll end up as a #4 and PP specialist is my projection.

Wow, you were down on the draft class? I thought this was a solid top 15 or so. There were no standout franchise elite level guys, but still plenty of really good first/second line potential prospects in the top 15 slots. Not exactly deep, but I wouldn't call it a weak draft per se. Compared to next year of course there is no comparison as we haven't seen a draft like next year since probably 2015

Unless Bourque-Stankoven is the duo that sees Mavrik spend his entire career a part of, I'll take my chances on being wrong. I feel like you're glossing over the %NHLer possibilities in favour of his comparables. Paul Stastny and Rob Thomas were NHLer's after their D+1 seasons. Giroux after his D+2 season. Bourque might be in his D+3 year but I suspect it'll be his D+4 season where he sees that full-time opportunity.

I remain skeptical about Bourque's goal-scoring acumen.

In the effort to be as impartial as possible, I've normalized the scoring of Bourque, Giroux, Stastny, and Thomas to the NCAA (highest junior-level represented) and took from the final seasons of each man's junior career: the goals-per-game rates are as follows:

1. Stastny (0.487G/GP)
2. Thomas (0.432G/GP)
3. Giroux (0.415G/GP)
4. Bourque (0.347G/GP)

NHLe factors for the math found here. Bourque should have been at a massive advantage over the rest of this crowd given his age over the rest of the QMJHL field but falls short of these totals. Perhaps the math behind the scenes at Hockey PRospecting (fantastic resource btw) accounts for this - I'm not sure it does beyond NHLe as a whole - but the underlying truth of even-strength goal scoring at the junior level being a primary predictor of sustained NHL success must be reiterated. Bourque does not comparably score at the rates of his comparables, but as I don't have access to whether or not each goal was at ES or special teams, this metric might not be enough to sufficiently prove that Bourque's potential is being overhyped.

The math isn't gospel but it needs to be taken into consideration. I don't think you need to get defensive about my thinking that Bourque won't become an NHL player: I fully believe his floor to be a middle-six piece, I just don't believe his ceiling is much higher than that.

Math suggests there were only five bonafide first-line guys. Savoie, Yurov, Cooley, Wright, and Dumais in no particular order (I use NHLe equal to or greater than 30 for forwards as the cut-off). Everyone else is going to need another year for the math to start showing some clear-cut top-line talents. Personally, I think Cooley falls out of that group. No legitimate starters but goalies are voodoo.

It was a really rich class for defencemen though and I'm a big fan of defencemen that can score. I might have been one of the few people here banging the Nemec-for-#2 spot with any consistency and I still think Jiricek has the highest ceiling of the RHD selected. Korchinski had the highest NHLe for blueliners in this class.

I’m not being defensive though, I’m just stating my opinion to counter your points, that’s how a constructive argument goes. Being defensive is saying that everything you said is wrong, and that you have no place to say that, I don’t feel that way about your points.

And as I see your points made here and the fact that your quote was made before my edit, I suggest you read the rest of what I wrote, as it’s not the same stuff as the rest.

No it's really not and definitely changes the tone of the post I originally replied to. I don't think RAPM or NHLe charts should be thrown haphazardly into an argument and it just seemed like tonally that's where you were going. My apologies.

I think the case you present is very much a part of the "wait and see" we're left with in the equation. I think those tools will allow him to become essentially a Wal-Mart-brand Huberdeau as a playmaking winger but I don't share the optimism you have about having found an actual right-handed stand-in for Huberdeau as you currently maintain. Part of that may be my ignorance as to the effectiveness as Hintz as a #1C (took me forever to get on board with Aho as the Canes' #1, don't worry, I'll get there) and part of it may be my own head too far lodged up my own ass with the math presented.

Bourgault's better though

Yeah, I also have to say that it’s partially my fault on the chart, I just threw it in because I remembered seeing it, and I thought to myself that it’s cool to see someone talking well of him because most of the Stars talks aren’t about Bourque. So I’m sorry for the random chart thrown in the exchange between us.

And as for any argument “non statistically based” it’s majorly “wait and see” because you can just say the opposite of what I said, there’s no concrete right answer to that, so no one is technically right.

I just mostly base my opinions on players (mostly prospects, rarely players) with hockey experience rather than stats because I’ve been in the world of hockey longer than the world of advanced analytics (I use them here and there, but I’m not that much familiar with them. I understand the basics and the why’s. I’m trying to get more into them). Players who have the ”hockey smarts” are really loved by coaches, from personal experience, I’ve already been cut from big teams because apparently the players picked before me have better hockey smarts than me even if I’m more talented than them. The majority of smart players get further than skilled players, with the exception of some skilled players like McDavid who have both abilities or someone like Hintz who have immense and raw talent. For an example, a prospect like Stranges probably has better abilities than someone like Bourque, but just with the fact that Bourqe is a way smarter player (or just that Stranges doesn’t have the best hockey smarts) elevates him to be much better. The whole aspect of discussing prospects is extremely random as they aren’t sure things, need time to develop, can develop into big or disappointing things, are still young, don’t gave the experience that the league’s players have, etc… They’re essentially young magic beans, more or less like picks, which is why they’re hard to gauge in trade talk because with a current NHL player, you know what you’ll get (unless it’s a player that has been downplayed by their team, for an example Nichushkin).

And for the last one we’ll have to wait and see