I'm not sure if I should dwell on the Bruins' loss to the Islanders (due to a very botched non-icing call, I'll have you know, very blatant mistake) or just be worried about the Rangers game in MSG tomorrow. Of course, the biggest deal is potentially losing Tuukka long term. What now?
I saw the highlights; I didn't see the Islander defenseman touch the puck. The puck went around the board and a Bruin was the first one to take it. Just my two cents. I didn't watch that carefully nor saw any replays.

Too bad for Rask. Possibly the best goalie in the league that is not a starter.
Speaking of goalies, emergence of some (relatively) young guys -- like Matt Hackett, Richard Bachman and Robin Lehner this particular season -- always makes me think: why on earth do the clubs always hire those 30+ guys that haven't been at their best in years (or have been just shooting stars), even if they have a superb youngster in the AHL or in Europe? Veterans demand more money and are more risky in goal than majority of the elite youngsters out there. Finland alone has something like seven U30 goalies that aren't in the league but who could play as NHL back-ups (assuming that they can take the pressure). Some could even be starters perhaps. But no, they always hire these Conklins and Raycrofts. Patrick Lalime recently was such a goalie for years!
Furthermore, why is hockey journalism blind to these aging guys' regression? The season previews always tell that "This team has hired *a random veteran goalie* as their short-term back-up for this season, and this guy can still get it done in the NHL level", even though those usually have 2-5 under .900 seasons under their belts already... I just don't understand. Why grab an old goalie that doesn't quite belong to that level anymore, why not the elite prospect? The only thing I can think of is that the veteran has proven to handle the pressure. Does it matter if he still cannot catch enough pucks anymore to regularly win some games? I'd rather take an unproven, uneven, super-talented quick kid than once-good, steady .885 veteran.
This brought to my mind Jeff Reese from the 90s. He didn't actually have a fantastic NHL career. I can understand why Philly's goalies always seem to fail as long as he is their goalie coach... I haven't read any blames on Reese, but I'd think that a constant under .890 guy on his own career (pretty bad even in his time) at least could be a problem of so many good goalies failing in Philly.