To me, your options fall along a spectrum.

1. At one end are optics that will perform well at producing the shots mentioned in the question. I can't say what a 'huge expense' is for you, but the lenses that will simplify getting those shots are bigger and faster pieces of glass that start around 2x the cost of your existing camera and lens and then more or less keep doubling in cost from there.

2. At the other end is learning how to use the gear you have to it's maximum capabilities instead of spending any money. This includes some combination of post processing, positioning, and persistence along with living with the limitations of your gear when you butt up against them (which you'll still do even if you throw $5-10k worth of gear at the issue).

3. In between, it might be possible to throw some money at the problem and get some of what you want with older long telephoto manual focus glass such as a Super Tachumar 400mm f5.6 and an M42 adaptor for the camera body. You'd loose image stabilization and need a tripod or more likely a monopod. People tend to use one with big image stabilized glass anyway. You'd have to work hard for the shots you want, but it would be possible to shoot end to end on a hockey rink. Total cost with a modestly reasonable monopod and head, you'd probably be around the cost of your camera and lens.

Anyway, it's always going to come down to getting the pictures you can get and compromising on the one's that you can almost get and living with not getting everything. Some subject matter will be well within the technical envelope of your equipment and other subjects will require learning the right creative compromises no matter what equipment you have.

Edit

It's worth looking at good hockey photos to get an idea of how photographers handle the limitations of their equipment. Fortunately, the NHL has plenty of images to study.

1. Few of them are shot from further than across the width of the rink and many of the most dramatic shots are close ups.

2. Some, like those from aerial and in goal cameras might be possible with non-DSLR cameras such as the GoPro or a cheap remote controlled cell phone and a fair amount of planning and technical infrastructure but relatively little money.

3. Like most sports, many of the standard subjects don't require particularly fast shutter speeds: faceoffs, goal celebrations ('jube'), impact with the boards, kissing the trophy, line changes, etc.

4. Relatively few of the action shots stop the puck in mid flight after a slapshot. A fair number are timing shots where the player is changing speed and direction and not moving as quickly across the frame.

5. Almost no shots are end to end of the far net.

6. Wide angle lenses provide some of the most dramatic images.

7. What makes a photograph tell a good story is often written on the player's face rather than evidence that a goal was scored.