Rigamarole - A Foot In The Crease - Episode 2.42

www.afootinthecrease.com

How many times have we heard, especially the last two seasons, from fans and media alike that the Maple Leafs have zero organizational depth compared with top franchises in the NHL? When JFJ and Doug Wilson consummated the transaction that saw Vesa Toskala and Mark Bell come to the Maple Leafs, it served as another prime example as to why the Leafs continue to lack that hot shot young talent that so many of the annually successful teams can boast.

In return for Toskala and Bell, the Leafs avoided giving up any roster players. Ask ten different people whether that’s a good thing and you’ll get ten different answers. Instead Ferguson opted to cash in the first and second round pick from this year’s draft and the Leafs 4th round selection in 2009. Based on the position the Leafs have sat in over the past two seasons, this type of a move is an example of a short term fix instead of a focus toward long-term success. While Toskala should shore up the concern in goal, will he alone make the Leafs a cup contender? No. As for Mark Bell, Toskala was not available unless Bell was apart of the deal. So really anything he produces is a bonus.

At the 13th pick, Angelo Esposito and Alexei Cherepanov were available, though they would not have won the Leafs the cup next season. However, the ability to draft either one of those two prospects could have put the Leafs in a position to build their team into a contender through the method MLSE management seems to be preaching but not following: building with youth through the draft. For Tampa Bay, Toskala’s addition could make them a serious contender next year with solid goaltending and a formidable offensive attack. For the Leafs, it comes nowhere close. But hey, all that was just rigamarole.

Rigamarole - A Foot In The Crease - Episode 2.41

www.afootinthecrease.com

Come the end of an NHL season when the finalists are announced for the variety of awards the league hands out, people tend to speculate over who will walk away with what. Generally the line is so fine between the quality of the top three up for each award, it is tough to argue after the winners are announced that a particular player should have won over the actual recipient. Maybe so, but the guy who won didn’t have that bad a year either right. You see my point.

When Martin Brodeur was announced as the Vezina Trophy winner on Thursday night over Roberto Luongo, a similar thought process went through my mind. When you sit back and think about it though, if the season Luongo had didn’t win him the Vezina Trophy, I don’t know what else he can do. Yes Brodeur was good this year and certainly a deserving candidate, but if you want to measure impact on a team, that nod certainly goes to Luongo. On a team that was arguable on par if not slightly below the quality of the Maple Leafs, Luongo carried the Canucks to a division championship. Brodeur did the same for the Devils, but they clearly had the stronger roster. Put Luongo on the Maple Leafs and the playoffs become a guarantee.

The Devils were expected to be a competitive team and they were. Many predicted the Canucks would not even make the playoffs, forget winning their division. Without Luongo, forget the playoffs. Without Brodeur, I still believe the Devils would have at the worst been in a race for the playoffs. If there was ever a year Brodeur was “less great”, I think this was it. Luongo was nothing but spectacular all year long.

Did Brodeur win on reputation? Perhaps. With virtually equal numbers during the season, Brodeur did not steal the Vezina Trophy. I just think Luongo deserved it that much more. But hey, all that was just rigamarole.

Rigamarole - A Foot In The Crease - Episode 2.40

www.afootinthecrease.com

That breeze you may have been feeling in the days after the Anaheim Ducks defeated the Ottawa Senators to become the 2007 Stanley Cup champions was the result of Leaf Nation collectively exhaling in relief. Really, it’s understandable. That breath was being held for close to two months and hey, for much of that time; it seemed the worst would come true. In the end though, not since the Detroit Red Wings swept the Washington Capitals in the 1998 Final has the Stanley Cup been won more efficiently than it was this year by the Ducks in five games.

For the Senators and their fans, the finals were a colossal letdown. While the Sens dominated their opponents through the first three rounds of the playoffs, they looked nothing but helpless against the Ducks. Yes, their performance in the Finals was disappointing but making it that deep into the playoffs is a fine accomplishment and frankly one the Leafs cannot boast about yet. The Sens can no longer be stereotyped as early playoff chokers despite being easily dispatched in the Finals.

The core of the team will be back next year with a year of Finals experience under their belts. In the last twelve years, Detroit, New Jersey, Carolina and Anaheim have all won Cups in years recently following Finals defeats. Clearly lessons learned in the Finals are invaluable pieces of knowledge that can lead to success in the near future.

In the mean time though Leaf fans can rest easily knowing their enemies don’t hold the ultimate trump card. The Anaheim Ducks were the better team by far. They deserved it more and Leaf fans certainly won’t be complaining. That being said, with both the Ducks and Sens likely to have similar rosters come next year, it’s not out of the realm of possibility to see a rematch come next years finals. Incidentally, did anyone expect former Leaf Ric Jackman to win a Stanley Cup before Mats Sundin? But hey, all that was just rigamarole.

Rigamarole - A Foot In The Crease - Episode 2.39

www.afootinthecrease.com

While controversial stories wear thinner as this season winds down, we were at a loss last night as we attempted to nail down a topic for rigamarole. Then Daniel Alfredsson kicked in a goal and it counted. Topic search over. At least he’s good for something. Fear not though people from Ottawa, there won’t be any whining about how the Ducks got cheated and that Alfredsson’s goal being allowed was a bogus call. We’ve had enough hate mail from Ottawa throughout the playoffs. Instead we will work from the inspiration given to us by the alleged Golden God and generalize the argument to whether or not goals in future should be allowed if they are kicked into the net.

The answer: definitely not! Allowing kicked goals is not a prudent way to increasing scoring. It diminishes the need for tremendous skill and is bound to result in some serious injuries. Would you want to be a netminder searching for the puck in a goal mouth scramble when you have to worry about not just being hit by sticks but by skate blades too? I certainly wouldn’t.

In soccer, you are forbidden from contacting the ball with your hands. In basketball, you cannot kick a pass to a teammate. Why? Because these are not actions that these respective sports attempt to exhibit. The same goes for hockey. Hand eye coordination with a hockey stick, not kicking is the skill on display here. And if we allowing kicking the puck in, why not batting it or throwing it in with your hand? Really how is one any different than the other?

If it’s in an effort to help avoid any further debate, I’d rather see this decision go the other way. Instead of allowing all kicked in goals, disallow any goal that goes off a skate, whether there is a kicking motion or not. That will eliminate all the confusion. Brett and Bobby Hull, the last two players who had the word Golden included in their nicknames never had to use their skate to score, a stick worked just fine for them. But hey, all that was just rigamarole.