Duck's goose cooked

Not a lot of playoff musings came across the old Internet lines this week. Guess you're all glued to your tubes or you're out at some arena with your faces against the glass. Still, some of you found time to get some cool things off your chest. A nice batch by any standard. And so, without further ado, your mailbag ...

The Ducks finally sacked Pierre Gauthier and rumor has it that former Rangers general manager Neil Smith will take over. How is that supposed to help? Take a guy used to not having a budget ceiling and introduce him to Disney's spending habits? Come on. If they hire Smith, the Ducks should open up their wallets like the Islanders did before this season. This way Smith can make like Mike Milbury and go from last to the playoffs in one season! What do you think?
—Patrick Zalamea, San Luis Obispo, Calif.

For all of Neil Smith's struggles at the end of his Rangers tenure -- and there's no question that he bungled things -- he is a far more respected hockey man than is Milbury. Smith was a first-rate scout with the Islanders and Red Wings. His scouting was a big part of Detroit's excellent roster in the late 1990s (the last draft he was involved in netted Nicklas Lidstrom, Sergei Fedorov and Vladimir Konstantinov). When he got the Rangers' job it was on sheer merit and, money or no money, Smith had a fine run in New York: a Cup, a conference final and three division titles in 10 years. That's the best run in the 76-year history of that franchise.

Smith, however, did not draft well for the Rangers, and many of the trades he made in his last couple of years were ill-advised. I honestly don't know how Smith will fare when he takes over a new team -- Anaheim or some place else -- but the jury is definitely out on him. He could turn a franchise around, even without a lot of money to spend. Or he could have lost his touch. Smith, though, deserves, and will get, another chance to be a GM -- and there's no way he could do worse with the Ducks than Gauthier did.

Given that the Canucks have played well and with much heart under coach Marc Crawford, do you think that Vancouver's management should try to give him a little more with which to work next season? Or do you think that Brian Burke's low payroll plan is the way to go?
—Anuk Karunaratne, Vancouver

Burke's budget plan has worked pretty well the last couple of years; after the Messier mess, the Canucks are a bit gun-shy about opening the vault for a big-name star. A key offseason signing or two could really help the team, but at this point there's no need to go on a spending spree. Vancouver still has some young players who are only going to get better.

Though I realize it's too early to be debating this, the playoffs managed to jog one thought in my mind. What do you think Claude Lemieux's chances are for the Hall of Fame? His career stats aren't overly impressive (750 career points or so and 1,700 or so PIMs) but when combined with 150 postseason points and four Stanley Cup rings (and a Conn Smythe Trophy), he looks an awful lot better. Also, his reputation always seems to have exceeded his actual talent. Do you think he has a shot?
—Jon Richardson, London, Ontario

What an interesting case. To my mind, there's no exact science as to who is or is not a Hall of Famer. Sure, there are certain numerical milestones that help (or hurt) a player's case -- there's a general parameter of production that voters look for. But ultimately it comes down to this: Did the player impact the games he was in? Was he at times dominant? Did he maintain that dominance over a long period of time? Lemieux has had only a few really good statistical regular seasons, including 41- and 39-goal seasons, and three other seasons with 30 or more.

In the NHL, though, the playoffs count for more. Lemieux has had about seven excellent playoff runs. He had that Conn Smythe, as you mentioned, in '95 and in another year he led all playoff scorers with 13 goals. Lemieux was a flat-out playoff menace through the early and mid '90s with New Jersey. From the start, Pepe knew when to shine. He had 10 goals in his rookie playoff season, and in addition to all his scoring, all through his youth and prime years he was about the most grating, worst-to-play-against, full-blown s.o.b. forward in the league. Your proposal could get a good debate going. I'd vote Claude Lemieux in.

In light of the fact that my team, the Philadelphia Flyers, cannot hit the broad side of a barn with a shot, I would like to know if players actually practice the timing and accuracy of their shots? Maybe it's a silly question, but I wonder why some teams seem to have more accurate shots than others, and I thought it might have something to do with practice. For example, plain and simple, it looks as if John LeClair needs to work on his accuracy. I know it's not that simple, or is it? Maybe an accuracy shooting competition in the All-Star Game would be a good exercise for forwards.
—Ted Feenny, Philadelphia

Some teams have more accurate shots because they have more accurate shooters. There are variations in practice style, and different coaches emphasize different elements of the game, but every single team practices shooting. Forwards like LeClair practice 100 shots a day. For example, teams run a rapid-fire shooting drill in which someone feeds puck after puck from behind the net to a sniper who tries to one-time it. There are many other variations on that sort of drill; breakaway drills, slapshot drills, etc. The problem is that no matter how often you shoot in practice drills, or even in intra-squad scrimmages, it doesn't compare to having to get a shot off under the high-speed pressure of a real game. There are no free throws in the NHL. A lot of shooting, particularly in tight quarters, is about instinct and timing. While there's no question that practice helps shooting skills a lot, there are some skills that players either have (or have developed) in game situations or don't have.

Here's an idea! It seems as though a team being seeded first in its conference is actually a disadvantage. The No. 1 seed ends up playing the No. 8 seed, which is usually a red-hot team playing great hockey in order to make the playoffs. Hence, why not let the first-place team pick its opponent from the Nos. 5 through 8 seeds? The second seed would then pick its opponent and so on. What do you think?
—Richard Bateman, Westport, Conn.

A wild and zany idea, Richard -- almost crazy enough to work. But naaah. There would be too much politics involved. General managers could make pacts with one another -- "don't pick me and I'll trade you so and so" -- and there would be so much room for unseemly maneuvering. You'd get people making picks because they owed favors or had attendance issues, and so on. Cool thinking, Richard, but this one's just too far afield.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Kostya Kennedy covers the NHL for the magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. His NHL mailbag appears Thursdays during the regular season. To send a question, click here.

 

Related information
Stories
Kostya Kennedy's Insider Archive
Multimedia
Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video
Search our site	Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day
	Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call your cable operator or DirecTV.