Sharks advance to Cup Final, Offside Replay, Torey Krug, Vancouver and Florida Trade

****

With a 5-2 Game 6 win, the Sharks finally got their Stanley Cup Final appearance that the franchise has probably deserved for close to a decade now. 

The Sharks drew first blood – pun totally intended – as Joe Pavelski was lost in coverage following up a Joe Thornton breakaway (I swear that’s what happened). Pavelski wrapped the puck around and stuffed in the rebound to give San Jose an early 1-0 lead.

Joel Ward gave the Sharks a 2-0 lead about five minutes into the second on a gorgeous deflection off a Brent Burns point shot. Though the deflection was nice, Alex Pietrangelo failed to tie him up in front. Note that Pietrangelo was the guy who lost Pavelski in coverage on the first goal. Either way, this tip was nice:

pic.twitter.com/BZEAefVOXj

— Stephanie (@myregularface) May 26, 2016

Ward scored a few minutes into the third, and that was the nail in the coffin on the season for St. Louis. Tarasenko scored a couple goals later – maybe that'll quiet the critics – but, as the cliché goes, it was too little, too late.

The Sharks were undeniably the class of the West throughout the playoffs, and now the much-maligned core finally gets their crack at the Cup. 

****

Every implementation of replay is going to have issues, and kinks (any baseball fan can tell you that at this point). I find the uproar of the offside replays kind of weird.

There is a lot of gray area in hockey, and the NHL specifically. One referee would call a hook on a certain play, while another referee would not on a similar play. Same for slashing a stick. Same for roughing. Or interference. In fact, it seems like there are a lot of rules in hockey that have a subjective quality, and that should be (and often is) a source of frustration for fans.

Seeing anger over the offside replays, thus, is odd. It’s a black and white rule. A player is either offside, or he isn’t. Either the puck is in the offensive zone before the non-puck carrier, or it’s not. I mean, it’s not even as subjective as icing has become. Quite frankly, it’s one of the easiest rules to get right on a replay. So why the uproar?

Do the inches matter for an on/offside play? Who knows. Whether the inches matter on an offside play is irrelevant because the play is offside. It’s an illegal play. And it’s one of the few rules in the NHL where discretion isn’t used. Stay onside, and this isn’t an issue.

****

Just wanting to point out some work that is going on in the realm of goaltending. Needless to say, especially from a fantasy angle, there is a lot of uncertainty with goalies.

Last year, Nick Mercadente, a lawyer by trade, and a Dave Babych enthusiast, introduced adjusted goals saved above average per 60 minutes. It’s an improvement over standard goals saved above average (something available on Hockey Reference), and I recommend readers go through that. It’s a good way of showing who performed well, and who did not, beyond simple save percentages.

The implications for fantasy here are obvious. There are good goalies on bad teams, bad goalies on good teams, and a host of other permutations. That muddles things in fantasy hockey. Jonathan Quick and Marc-André Fleury are about average goaltenders, but are frequently top fantasy options because of the teams the play for. Meanwhile, Cory Schneider suffers from Myteamcannotscoreitis. This tool can help identify goaltenders that play for good-to-elite teams that others may not target.

The analysis in hockey is ever-evolving, and goaltending needs a lot more work. This helps, though, and fantasy owners should brush up.

****

Wait, what? 

The Vancouver Canucks traded centre Jared McCann, a second round pick in 2016, and a fourth round pick in 2016 to Florida in exchange for defenceman Erik Gudbranson and a fifth round pick in 2016.

Dobber wrote last night on the fantasy impact of this deal. I encourage readers to check out his view on this. 

I’ll give you that Gudbranson is only going into his Age 25 season next year, but he has over 300 regular season games under his belt. By no objective measure – points, points per minute, shot generation, shot suppression, possession differential – has he been an impact player. Generally, a player should check at least two of those boxes. He’s checked none.

The fact that the Canucks gave up two higher picks, and a 19-year old centre who was just fine in a rookie season that saw limited ice time, should be disconcerting for Canucks fans. This is a bad trade. It might be worse than the Sutter/Bonino trade.

Maybe Gudbranson can start to shine if he plays a sheltered role and his minutes are guarded. I sincerely doubt the Canucks made this trade with that intention, though.

As far as fantasy goes, Gudbranson has no fantasy impact.

McCann probably won’t have much fantasy impact this year. Both Aleksander Barkov and Nick Bjugstad are signed long-term, and the Panthers are assuredly going to lock up Vincent Trocheck as he’s a restricted free agent. That locks up the top three centres, presumably with McCann serving as the fourth line centre. It will take an injury or two for him to have some relevance, though he could always see power play time.

One thing to note is how this may affect Florida d-man Mike Matheson. He looked very good in their brief playoff run, and again in the World Championships. With Gudbranson gone, and Brian Campbell a pending free agent, he could slot himself in the second pair with power play time out of the gate. There is still a lot of time between now and the start of the season for him to be pushed down the depth chart, but it’s definitely a name to keep in mind for now.

Sorry, Canucks fans. I know it’s been a rough year.

Jim Benning has not had a very good year, with all of this happening since July 1, 2015.

Yikes, yikes, yikes. pic.twitter.com/B6og8FTZwb

— Mike Darnay (@MikeDarnay) May 26, 2016

****

This is the time of year, and has been for a little while now, where everyone gets hopped up on prospects. Laine and Matthews have certainly kept social media abuzz thanks to their performances at the World Championships.

As I’ve repeatedly stated over my tenure here at Dobber, I like to rely on other sources for prospects. There are just so many from all across the world that it really is hard to keep track of them all, and do so in a reliable manner. One person I follow, and pay for ESPN Insider in large part because of, is Corey Pronman.

I heartily recommend picking up the Dobber Prospects Report as well. It can be purchased by following this link. The prospect team here at Dobber does a fantastic job researching and projecting top prospects from each team, as well as going in-depth on 2016 draftees, all from a fantasy angle.

Make your job easier, and get a head start on the competition.

****

Torey Krug

Krug makes an interesting case. There have been 21 defencemen to have 120 or more points over the last three seasons, which would be an average of 40 points a season. This is the list:

What is notable here is that Krug is 18^th in terms of total ice time among all these players. Two of the players below him in TOI have had injury issues at times (Kris Letang and Kevin Shattenkirk), while Burns only has the last two years as a true defenceman for San Jose. In fact, Krug has just nine fewer points than Ryan Suter over the last three years, though Suter has played over 2300 more minutes in that span. That’s why it’s important to note that of the 96 d-men with at least 4000 minutes over the last three seasons, Krug is 11^th in points per minute played in all situations. At five-on-five, he’s 18^th out of 118 d-men with at least 3000 minutes played over the last three years.  

It seems like Krug is due for an ice time jump next year. He has now played three full seasons, is going into his Age 25 season, and quite frankly, there are not better options on the Bruins. It’s not hard to envision Krug making the jump to 50 points next year if he can play 24-25 minutes a night.

Last year, Krug set a career-high with 44 points, and averaged over three shots on goal per game. He shot just 1.6-percent, though, and that is something that has to rebound.

He was also just one of six defencemen to crack 40 points with at least three shots on goal per game. The others were Burns, Erik Karlsson, Dustin Byfuglien, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, and Letang. That is an impressive list.

With some added minutes, and shooting percentage regression, I think putting Krug is a 50-point guy, and someone to target in drafts.

****

Speaking of Boston defencemen, the Bruins re-signed defenceman Kevan Miller to a four-year contract carrying a $2.5-million AAV. That now gives the Bruins four defencemen – Zdeno Chara, Dennis Seidenberg, and Adam McQuaid, along with Miller – signed for at least the next two years. With Torey Krug a pending restricted free agent, that would likely make five. So, if you’re a Bruins fan, barring a miracle trade that sees one of Seidenberg or McQuaid go, this defence corps is what it is going to be for the near-term (though we’ll see how all the health issues work out).

Of course, that’s a big problem. This was a Bruins team that was sandwiched between the Rangers and the Islanders in terms of adjusted shot attempts allowed at five-on-five. That ranked 21^st in the league. The year before they were 12^th. The year before that, fifth. It has been a steady decline for a team that had been renowned, justly or not, for its defence and goaltending.

In and of itself, the Miller signing isn’t that bad. He’s a solid enough bottom pair defenceman, something every team can use. The problem is that the allocation of cap space is critical, and $9.25-million is tied up between Seidenberg, McQuaid, and Miller combined for each of the next two seasons. Dedicating 13-percent of your cap space between three d-men who are probably all bottom-pair d-men, at best, and when healthy, is a poor allocation of resources. As pointed out by Ryan Lambert, this is why it’s a poor allocation of resources:

@travisyost mcquaid and miller alone now make up 91% of hamilton's cap hit.

— yung intelligence (@twolinepass) May 25, 2016

All this doesn’t even take into account Chara’s contract.

While the contract itself isn’t a huge issue, when taken into context with all the other poorly allocated resources, the issue comes into focus: Assuming Krug gets about $4-million AAV on his deal, the Bruins will have about $20-million against the cap spread among five defencemen, with only one that can realistically be relied upon to play anywhere close to top pair minutes (Krug). When 28-percent of your cap is tied up to five defencemen, they should be a stellar core for your team. Rather, this defence situation is a handcuff that will keep this team from improving, barring huge jumps from minor leaguers, for the next couple of years.

*Some stats from Hockey Reference, Hockey Analysis, and War On Ice. Cap information from Cap Friendly.