After that little stretch came and went? Since January 16, the Bruins have points in all but two of their games (17-2-3). Winners of their last nine. Admittedly, I didn't even realize they had overtaken the Pittsburgh Penguins for the Eastern Conference's best record. Chalk it up to some college hoops over the last week, but it's time to fully reinvest in the B's.
Tuukka Rask has been absolutely outstanding all season long, but particularly during this stretch. Carrying the load for the Bronze Medal-winning Finns at the Olympics hasn't seemed to hurt him either. One question mark I had about Rask's 8-year, $56 million contract was "can he withstand a full 82 game schedule?" Hard as it is to believe, Tuukka has never been a full-time starter over a full season. 2009-10 he replaced Tim Thomas about halfway through, playing in 45 games (plus the post-season where he and the Bruins wilted a 3-0 series lead to the Flyers). He was penciled in as the starter for the 2010-11 season, where the Bruins ultimately won the Stanley Cup, but Thomas's hot start earned him the job back, and you know the rest. After Timmy T went off the deep end, Rask earned the starting job back in 2012-13, but as you remember, that was only a 48-game schedule.
Tuukka Rask has been absolutely outstanding all season long, but particularly during this stretch. Carrying the load for the Bronze Medal-winning Finns at the Olympics hasn't seemed to hurt him either. One question mark I had about Rask's 8-year, $56 million contract was "can he withstand a full 82 game schedule?" Hard as it is to believe, Tuukka has never been a full-time starter over a full season. 2009-10 he replaced Tim Thomas about halfway through, playing in 45 games (plus the post-season where he and the Bruins wilted a 3-0 series lead to the Flyers). He was penciled in as the starter for the 2010-11 season, where the Bruins ultimately won the Stanley Cup, but Thomas's hot start earned him the job back, and you know the rest. After Timmy T went off the deep end, Rask earned the starting job back in 2012-13, but as you remember, that was only a 48-game schedule.
Last night's triumph over the Minnesota Wild prompted a friend of mine, let's call him @frankie4seven, to tweet, "Is Tuukka Rask for Andrew Raycroft the most lopsided trade in NHL history?"
A bold statement for sure. But is the notion necessarily wrong? I'm not sure if there was ever a trade back in the 1930's where the Hamilton Tigers traded a 19-year-old Finnish phenom to the Brooklyn Americans for a 24-year-old goalie who it turned out was already washed up, or just wasn't that good in the first place. But if we're talking about recent history? Most people simply thought "good riddance" when the Bruins traded Andrew Raycroft to Toronto on June 24, 2006 for an unknown goalie prospect with two U's and two K's in his first name. Years later, it truly has become one of the most laughable, lopsided deals in NHL history.
Of course, that trade was made less than a year after the Bruins shipped Joe Thornton to San Jose for Brad Stuart, Marco Sturm and Wayne Primeau.
In a vacuum, there's no denying the Thornton trade was worse. Jumbo Joe went on to win the Hart Trophy for the Sharks after the November 30, 2005 deal to San Jose. Thornton put up 20 goals and 72 assists for 92 points in just 58 games with the Sharks that year, and went on to lead the NHL in assists each of the next two seasons. Stuart and Sturm weren't necessarily terrible for the Bruins, but essentially they traded a top-5 center in the prime of his career for a no. 3 defenceman and a fringe top-6 forward. And Primeau just flat out sucked.
Fortunately for the Bruins, however, that trade doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sturm was actually a nice piece in the initial rise of this current Bruins run of success, tallying 20+ goals in a season four times in Boston before moving on after 2010. Stuart was dealt during the 2006-07 season, along with Primeau, for Chuck Kobasew and a guy by the name of Andrew Ferrence. Most importantly, however, by moving Thornton and his contract, the Bruins created enough cap space the following summer to sign Zdeno Chara and Marc Savard (the latter not entirely via Thornton savings, but still). Essentially, the trade marked a disappointing end to the 2001-2005 rendition of the Bruins, who had great regular seasons, followed by first round flame-outs in the playoffs. Usually to Montreal.
What can the Maple Leafs say about their decision to take a gamble on Raycroft after the 2005-06 season? On the one hand, "The Razor" had won the Calder Trophy in 2003-04, prior to the lockout. Was it just a sophomore slump? The Bruins had a pretty terrible defensive corps in '05-06, guys like David Tanabe, Jiri Slegr, and a 60-year-old Brian Leetch. Was it simply that Raycroft needed a change of scenery?
As it turns out, no, not at all, the Razor just straight up wasn't very good. He lasted just two seasons in Toronto, allowing more goals than any other goalie in the league his first season (205). He went on to flounder around the league as a backup in Colorado, Vancouver and Dallas, and hasn't played in the league since the end of the 2012 season. (He did, however, have a role in this Bruins vs. Stars game from 2011, posted below as well).
I need to point out again, that Rask hasn't yet played a full 82-game schedule in the NHL. But he's still just 27, and seeing how he has seven years left on his contract, I think that'll change soon. Meanwhile, the Leafs have shuffled through a depressing list of goalies including Vesa Toskala, Jonas Gustavsson, Joey MacDonald, J.S. Giguere, James Reimer, and countless others. They just appeared in the playoffs for the first time since 2004 last season, and, well, we know how that turned out.
A bold statement for sure. But is the notion necessarily wrong? I'm not sure if there was ever a trade back in the 1930's where the Hamilton Tigers traded a 19-year-old Finnish phenom to the Brooklyn Americans for a 24-year-old goalie who it turned out was already washed up, or just wasn't that good in the first place. But if we're talking about recent history? Most people simply thought "good riddance" when the Bruins traded Andrew Raycroft to Toronto on June 24, 2006 for an unknown goalie prospect with two U's and two K's in his first name. Years later, it truly has become one of the most laughable, lopsided deals in NHL history.
Of course, that trade was made less than a year after the Bruins shipped Joe Thornton to San Jose for Brad Stuart, Marco Sturm and Wayne Primeau.
In a vacuum, there's no denying the Thornton trade was worse. Jumbo Joe went on to win the Hart Trophy for the Sharks after the November 30, 2005 deal to San Jose. Thornton put up 20 goals and 72 assists for 92 points in just 58 games with the Sharks that year, and went on to lead the NHL in assists each of the next two seasons. Stuart and Sturm weren't necessarily terrible for the Bruins, but essentially they traded a top-5 center in the prime of his career for a no. 3 defenceman and a fringe top-6 forward. And Primeau just flat out sucked.
Fortunately for the Bruins, however, that trade doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sturm was actually a nice piece in the initial rise of this current Bruins run of success, tallying 20+ goals in a season four times in Boston before moving on after 2010. Stuart was dealt during the 2006-07 season, along with Primeau, for Chuck Kobasew and a guy by the name of Andrew Ferrence. Most importantly, however, by moving Thornton and his contract, the Bruins created enough cap space the following summer to sign Zdeno Chara and Marc Savard (the latter not entirely via Thornton savings, but still). Essentially, the trade marked a disappointing end to the 2001-2005 rendition of the Bruins, who had great regular seasons, followed by first round flame-outs in the playoffs. Usually to Montreal.
What can the Maple Leafs say about their decision to take a gamble on Raycroft after the 2005-06 season? On the one hand, "The Razor" had won the Calder Trophy in 2003-04, prior to the lockout. Was it just a sophomore slump? The Bruins had a pretty terrible defensive corps in '05-06, guys like David Tanabe, Jiri Slegr, and a 60-year-old Brian Leetch. Was it simply that Raycroft needed a change of scenery?
As it turns out, no, not at all, the Razor just straight up wasn't very good. He lasted just two seasons in Toronto, allowing more goals than any other goalie in the league his first season (205). He went on to flounder around the league as a backup in Colorado, Vancouver and Dallas, and hasn't played in the league since the end of the 2012 season. (He did, however, have a role in this Bruins vs. Stars game from 2011, posted below as well).
I need to point out again, that Rask hasn't yet played a full 82-game schedule in the NHL. But he's still just 27, and seeing how he has seven years left on his contract, I think that'll change soon. Meanwhile, the Leafs have shuffled through a depressing list of goalies including Vesa Toskala, Jonas Gustavsson, Joey MacDonald, J.S. Giguere, James Reimer, and countless others. They just appeared in the playoffs for the first time since 2004 last season, and, well, we know how that turned out.
The Maple Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967, and won't win one because of the Tuukka-for-Razor swap. The Bruins hadn't won a Cup since 1972, and won in 2011, not because of the Joe Thornton trade, but because of corresponding moves. So can we call Tuukka-for-Razor the worst trade ever? I don't see why not.
No comments:
Post a Comment