The viceroy of 2012-06-17 05:42:11
FISCHLER: Conn Smythe for Giguere is travesty
BY STAN FISCHLER
The Professional Hockey Writers’ Association has made a mistake.
A BIG mistake.
An egregious error, if you will.
Late in the seventh game of the Stanley Cup finals, the (print)
journalists voted for the most valuable player of all the playoffs.
Instead of choosing a winner, the reporters selected Anaheim Mighty
Ducks goaltender, Jean-Sebastien Giguere.
No question, the French-Canadian netminder played nobly for the Orange
County sextet until the game that counted most, the finale.
Not only that, Giguere enjoyed three consecutive superior performances
in the first three rounds but he significantly faltered in the round
that mattered most, the finals.
It was Giguere’s mediocre play in Games 1 and 2 in New Jersey which
allowed the Devils to take a meaningful 2-0 series lead while his
opposite, Martin Brodeur posted a pair of shutouts.
There’s no law against losing players (goalies) winning the Smythe. Ron
Hextall did it for the Flyers in 1987 and Roger Crozier for the Red
Wings in 1966, to name a couple.
But each of those and I covered both series were aberrations.
Before going further, let’s examine precisely what the NHL defines for
the Smythe winner.
An annual award to the most valuable player for his team in the
playoffs. Winner selected by the Professional Hockey Writers’
Association at the conclusion of the final game in the Stanley Cup
finals. The winner receives $10,000.
Here’s why Brodeur and not Giguere deserved the Smythe.
The key word is valuable. Here’s how the Merrian-Webster Dictionary
valuable (adj): of great use or service; invaluable, priceless, costly,
expensive, dear, precious.
Brodeur, flaws notwithstanding, was more valuable more times over the
four playoff series than Giguere.
Assuming that Brodeur and Giguere were equally precious over three
series, we then come to the finals, when value counts most.
Giguere was mediocre in Games 1, 2, 5 and 7. He also was a bit too cocky
for his own good; dissing Brodeur when the series originally shifted to
Flying frog 2012-06-21 00:42:11
Mark, that’s not going to help our side. Fischler’s a twit and now you use
him to present our case? I just may have to go over to the other side
Iain fraser 2012-06-21 00:43:02
Ok that was funny.
The viceroy of 2012-06-24 04:10:19
I know. I just figured throwing Stan in is a little like throwing Al
Sharpton into a Presidental Race. Whatever you get you know it will be
Jcaramagna 2012-06-24 04:10:21
Just for the record, if you read the article it is plain to see that Fischler
is arguing the criteria for the trophy and not the choice of winner. He says
very early on that the journalists made a mistake by not choosing a winner,
when the trophy definition dictates this is not an award for the winner solely.
he also claims Giguere was mediocre in Game 1, when that is not true at all.
Right there, he isn’t being genuine.
Here is a perfect example of how he is not genuine:
That’s it. That’s all. Nothing more. Uh… nice way to explain, Stan.
So when a guy is cocky, it means he isn’t the most valuable to his team in the
I’m not surprised that you chose a very flawed argument to back up your claim.
Of course I can just dig up articles that explain why Giguere DID deserve the
Conn Smythe, too. Form a valid argument or just admit you’re wrong. Then we can
P.S. – why is it that when I quoted Stan Fischler, I was told he wasn’t a
reliable source? (Not by you, of course, I’m just curious).
Chris 2012-06-24 04:11:14
You’re quoting Stan Fischler as anything but a quack?
You’ve backed up your point on this issue with some good factual
stuff, but quoting Fischler doesn’t help the credibility of your
argument at all. Should have left that one out…
Jcaramagna 2012-06-29 02:06:31
Actually he has not backed up his point at all. Instead of admitting he is
wrong, he tries to change the argument by providing facts that are irrelevent.
I tried to make it easy by saying that we all agree that the system of voting
may have to be changed, and that we all agree that Martin brodeur is a better
goalie and was the better goalie in the Finals. I don’t think anybody would
dispute these things.
The debate is whether or not Giguere deserved to win the Conn Smythe Trophy. I
say yes, and have provided many indisputable reasons, and he says no,
suggesting Brodeur should have won it, without being able to justify his
That’s the debate in a nutshell.
The viceroys b 2012-06-29 02:07:05
Admit you are wrong, Joey! And show some facts!
And Marty Brodeur was more valuable to his team. He pitched record-setting
shutouts. He actually achieved what he came for. Admit you are wrong! Go ahead! Do it!
That may be your debate. Mine is whether or not there were two candidates who
were deserving and why wrong people are so dismissive of one of those.
Ho ho ho. What were your facts again? Or even for the first time?
More BS from the Duke of Disagreement. Your lack of hockey knowledge is
showing. You’re wrong. Just admit it. Fess up.
No, that’s your myopic nonsense which ducks now for the 11th time my question to
you on why, using your “explanation”,Hasek didn’t deserve the Conn Smythe in
1999. Before you open your flaptrap on my wrongness or not repeated fwapping
you in the fact with facts to which you play Helen Keller, answer that .
Jcaramagna 2012-07-02 04:41:19
How nice it must be to just try and be funny when you can’t validate what you
Ok! Now we’re getting somewhere. You start with your side of the argument then
start backing it up…
BZZZT! Failed already? Dang. That was fast. I’m looking at the criteria for the
conn Smythe Trophy, and I don’t see “record-setting” shutouts. Heck I don’t
even see “shutouts” or “record-setting” on their own either. Try again. Why was
Martin Brodeur more valuable to his team than Giguere was to the Ducks?
BZZT! Strike two. Ouch. Not a very good way to start. You do NOT need to win
the Stanley Cup in order to win the Conn Smythe Trophy, that is not part of the
criteria either. Do you want to keep trying?
Again, nice try at the humor, but when you can’t prove a point and continue to
stick by it, you only embarrass yourself.
This is the first time you are ever saying that there are two candidates who
were deserving. And not only is this your first time saying it, but you have
been trying to make a case that Brodeur was more deserving, so this isn’t even
the point you have been trying to validate.
I’ll pose the very same questions again, since you are trying to ignore them to
avoid having to admit that you are wrong. Was Martin Brodeur THAT much more
valuable to the Devils than Scott Niedermayer, John Madden, and Jamie
Langenbrunner over the course of the 4 rounds of playoff hockey? Is the gap
between Brodeur’s value and Nieds’, Madden’s, or Langer’s value larger than the
gap between Giguere and any other Duck during the course of playoff hockey in
2003? Did Martin Brodeur single-handedly carry the Devils through 4 rounds the
way Giguere carried the Ducks, or more often throughout the playoffs?
Ask yurself those questions, and then you’ll realize that JS Giguere was the
most valuable player to his team in the playoffs.
What BS? Just because you say so? Sorry, the world doesn’t work that way, which
is why I’m asking you to either prove your point or admit you’re wrong. Can it
be any more simple?
More humor to hide your weak argument. Doesn’t fly. Fish or cut the bait, as
they say in the South.
When did I ever say Hasek didn’t deserve the Conn Smythe in 1999? You are
trying to avoid having to prove your point. What does 1999 have to do with
Sure, if you admit that it has no bearing at all on the current debate. Or at
least explain how it is related. Just diversionary tactics so you don’t have to
admit that you are wrong.
And yes you are providing a lot of facts. Record-setting shutouts and such.
Unfortunately they don’t have anything to do with the Conn Smythe. Try some
Flying frog 2012-07-02 04:42:04
Because without Matry, the Devils don’t win the Cup. I think they’d get
through without anybody else. Not without Marty. Without Giguere, the Ducks
don’t win the Cup, oh wait, they didn’t… Their end result is no different
without him. That, and I honestly believe they’d have done the same with any
other #1 goalie (except Brodeur).
Jcaramagna 2012-07-02 04:42:26
I take GREAT offense to this. Without Niedermayer they still win the Cup?
Without Madden? Without Langenbrunner? Stevens or Friesen even?
You’re making a case for Marty by downplaying the contributions of the other
Devils. Actually, one could argue that without Jeff Friesen, they don’t even
GET to the Finals.
So you’re saying that no loser should win the Conn Smythe right? Because, after
all, the end result is the same without anybody on the team. Well then you are
arguing the criteria for the award and not the winner.
Conspiracy theories abound!
Dg 2012-07-02 12:43:29
Without Wade Redden’s contribution they don’t get to the finals.
Jcaramagna 2012-07-02 12:43:51
Are you starting a “Wade Redden for Conn Smythe” campaign? 😉
Dg 2012-07-02 12:43:58
On 12 Dec 2003 21:20:27 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (JCaramagna)
YES!! Maybe Sled will join me.
The viceroys b 2012-07-05 15:33:44
The good news Frank is we are twin sons of different mothers. The bad news is
that neither of us has confessed to our wrongness and risk having our
credibility lowered in Joeyworld.
Flying frog 2012-07-05 15:34:24
Well, I do have a brother I’ve never met, but I know his name and it isn’t
And I’ll never confess. See, I haven’t seen a follow-up to my post with the
definition of opinion in it yet. Maybe Joseph won’t be able to counter that
one and that’s the basis of my arguement…
The viceroys b 2012-07-06 21:29:23
I imagine Joseph will ignore it and continue to argue other points with
“You’re wrong. Just admit it.”