fbpx

Author: Neil Keefe

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Yankees

Feb 21, 2013

The State of the Yankees: Spring Training Edition

Opening Day is less than six weeks away and with spring training having started, Sweeny Murti made his first appearance of 2013 for an email exchange.

Opening Day is 39 days away. That’s right. Thirty-nine days! And it wouldn’t feel like baseball season is just around the corner without starting the season off the right way.

WFAN Yankees beat reporter Sweeny Murti (the Voice of Reason) joined me for the first time in 2013 for an email exchange to talk about the Yankees now that spring training has started.

Keefe: So we meet again, Sweeny. It’s been a while, but it’s that time of the year again when your phone makes a noise because you have a new email and then you check your email and see that it’s from me only to wonder why you ever gave me your email address to begin with. It’s good to have you back because if we’re talking it means that baseball is back and it’s almost really back.

The last time we talked Derek Jeter didn’t have a plate and screws in his ankle, A-Rod’s performance-enhancing drug use was a thing of the past, Russell Martin and Nick Swisher were still Yankees and I still hated Kevin Youkilis. A lot has changed since Phil Coke closed the book on the 2012 Yankees and judging by the offseason and the word “budget” I would completely understand if you changed your email address without telling me or blocked me altogether from contacting you.

Even though doom and gloom are on everyone’s minds with the 2013 Yankees, I’m actually optimistic about this team. The Yankees are coming off an ALCS appearance, yes it was one in which they were embarrassed, but they were still a 95-win, division champion team that reached the ALCS for the third time in four years. They aren’t the 93-loss Red Sox and they didn’t blow the whole thing up in search of a rebuilding year. I understand that they didn’t have a “sexy” offseason like the Blue Jays or Angels, but like you always say, “Teams like that make those moves to compete with the Yankees.”

So before we get into individual storylines, let’s start with the simple question of why is everyone treating the Yankees like they didn’t win 95 games last season?

Murti: I’m sorry, but I don’t recognize your name and email address. Who are you again?

Seriously, I recognize the name, but you can’t be the real Neil Keefe. You sound way too reasonable and levelheaded to be that Neil Keefe. Oh, well. Whoever you are, here’s my answer.

My guess is that getting swept out of the ALCS made the season feel like a miserable failure and that 95 wins happened almost by accident since they couldn’t possibly be that good. Besides, the Yankees are old now and Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera and Andy Pettitte are all coming off injuries. Sure, the Yankees had to re-sign Rivera and Pettitte and Hiroki Kuroda and Ichiro Suzuki, but these guys were already here. Yankee fans don’t want their old toys rewrapped and put under the tree. They want all new toys!

I’m glad you realize, “Neil,” that winning the World Series was always very hard to do and is getting even harder now. And when you get to October, the gap between teams is very close and can make a series go either way. It’s hard to think an NFL team with 14 wins can lose a playoff game to a team with eight wins, but it’s entirely possible for a 100-win team to lose a playoff series to an 85-win team. We’ve seen baseball’s postseason turn into a tournament almost like NCAA’s March Madness. But in this Fall Frenzy, the Yankees are like Kentucky or Duke or North Carolina in that they are almost always a 1-seed, but rarely able to complete the journey to a championship.

What you or any Yankee fan should want is a chance and that’s what this organization always gives you: a chance. And for some reason, there are many fans who feel as if watching a team that doesn’t virtually guarantee a championship and make other teams want to quit before Opening Day is a waste of time. I’m glad you don’t fall into that category because that other Neil Keefe certainly is one of them. In fact, I’m almost certain that’s why I haven’t heard from him in months since he’s too paralyzed by grief from last October to even get off his couch.

Keefe: It’s me, Neil. It’s really me. I think the only reason why I’m so optimistic is because it’s Feb. 20, which means there’s less than six weeks until Opening Day against the Red Sox. Talk to me in the top of the first of that game when there are two on and two out and Joe Girardi is going to the mound to talk to CC Sabathia. Let’s just hope Sean Rodriguez isn’t somehow up and Carlos Pena is on deck…

The 2012 season ended when I watched Derek Jeter fall to the ground in Game 1 of the ALCS and not get up causing me to nearly throw up all over John Jastremski, who was next to me in the right field bleachers. I left the Stadium that night knowing that the series was over because 1.) You DON’T lose a game at HOME in YANKEE STADIUM in the PLAYOFFS that you trail by four runs and come back to tie before losing in extra innings. You just dont. And 2.) You’re not winning a series when you just lost your best offensive player and captain for the rest of the postseason.

All of these years the Yankees’ problem in postseason losses has been pitching (outside of Game 5 of the 2011 ALDS and all of the 2012 playoffs) and here the Yankees were getting gems from CC Sabathia, Andy Pettitte and Hiroki Kuroda over and over only to not be able to get men on base or even get the ball out of the infield. But enough about the 2012 Yankees. They failed. (See what you’ve made me do!) Let’s look at the 2013 Yankees and let’s start with the man with the new ankle.

This is the last year of Jeter’s deal before his $8 million player option for 2014 and everyone is saying that at age 39 (in June) and after coming back from ankle surgery, Jeter can’t possibly hit the way he did in 2012. Most of these people are the same people that attribute success and failure in baseball to “luck” and in that case, Derek Jeter has been lucky since 1996 and on top of that, he is the luckiest hitter to ever play for the Yankees since he is the only player in franchise history to reach 3,000 hits. Do you think he will come with me on my next trip to Las Vegas and just sit next to me at the Blackjack table since he apparently exudes an unprecedented amount of luck?

In 2013, I think Jeter will offensively be the same player he was last year. Sure, his range might be declining, but it has been for a while and he’s not about to move to the right any better than he did a year ago, especially with that ankle. But I think his hitting will still be there. At least I keep telling myself it will be the way I keep telling myself he will play forever.

Do you recognize this Neil Keefe yet?

Murti: Well you’re doing a pretty fair impression of Neil, whoever you are. You’ve obviously done your homework.

What Jeter did in 2012 is enough reason not to doubt his ability to hit in 2013, but the injury does add an interesting layer to the discussion. He’s overcoming a major injury, but the time between meaningful at-bats is the same as it is every offseason for Jeter (October to April). If you want to believe that he’s going to still be a good hitter, I won’t stop you.

Of course, we must look at the realization of Jeter’s 39th birthday approaching this June. But rather than predicting Jeter’s decline, watching him for all these years makes me realize it’s smarter to just wait for it to happen. It might be this year. It might be in three years. But Jeter wants you to think it’s right now, because he seems to enjoy saying, “I told ya so” almost as much as Michael Jordan, who I believe celebrated a birthday recently. I’m not sure, I think I saw something about that somewhere.

Before we can find out the answer it will be a daily exercise in spring training to gauge how well Jeter is running and moving. I might even suggest that he change his walk-up song to Bobby Brown’s “Every Little Step.” How do you feel about that?

Keefe: I always liked when he used “Nasty Girl” by B.I.G. or even when he started using Puff Daddy’s “Come With Me” (the remake of “Kashmir”) even if A-Rod used to use it. So I guess I’m OK with him switching to Bobby Brown.

As for A-Rod, is anyone surprised at this new report that he might have used performance-enhancing drugs again? I’m not sure how anyone could be surprised that a former user decided to use again with his career in serious decline to the point that he became a bench player in the postseason. My only problem with A-Rod using performance-enhancing drugs is that if he was using them during the postseason, he might want to try a different brand.

This is your 13th spring training with the Yankees and I can’t imagine that any spring was as chaotic as 2009 with the Yankees coming off their first postseasonless year since 1993 and new free agents CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira and yes, that guy A.J. Burnett in pinstripes and the anticipation of opening a new Stadium and the Sports Illustrated report breaking A-Rod’s PED use and then A-Rod missing the beginning of the season due to hip surgery that forced Cody Ransom (just the name makes me think about drinking in the morning) into the starting lineup. I don’t think any spring could match up with that one during your time covering the team, but tell me if I’m wrong.

And when I think about everything that happened in February and March of 2009, months before the Yankees went on to win the World Series, it makes me think about how little of a deal all of this attention being paid to A-Rod’s second PED problem and the aging lineup and Mark Teixeira telling the Wall Street Journal that he’s overpaid and now Phil Hughes’ back problem in the first week of baseball. All of this seems like a walk in the park.

Sorry, I got off track there for a minute. I know A-Rod’s situation is much more complicated than anyone realizes and unless the Yankees hit a massive parlay, he will be collecting that $114 million from them. My question to you is: Over/under 0.5 games for A-Rod as a Yankee ever again?

Murti: Okay, now I recognize you, Neil. We really have to work on this A.J. Burnett fixation of yours. Although I would like to point out to you Game 2 of the 2009 World … oh, never mind.

Spring training highlights of the past 13 years? Oh there have been plenty: A-Rod ripping Jeter in Esquire in 2001; Ruben Rivera stealing Jeter’s glove in 2002; David Wells’ book fiasco in 2003; Kevin Brown being Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson’s love child, Carl Pavano’s bruised buttocks, Hideki Matsui’s wedding, Shelley Duncan fighting the Rays, Kei Igawa running like Forrest Gump, A-Rod and Jason Giambi and every PED story for the last 10 years and Joba Chamerlain and the trampoline. I won’t even pretend to rank these spring training stories in any order. Let’s just say they are all my very special children. “It Happens Every Spring,” as they say.

I’m going to take the over on your wager. As I explained here a few weeks ago, getting rid of A-Rod is wishful thinking. Will he be any good when he comes back? That’s a question none of us can answer. But I think we are pretty certain he’s never going to be a 40-home run threat again. Unless you’re talking about two or three years worth. Then maybe.

Keefe: Speaking of A.J. Burnett, Russell Martin used, “Wow” to talk about Burnett’s first bullpen session of the spring. Maybe Martin has short-term memory loss from when they were both Yankees in 2011 or maybe he forgot that Burnett was throwing to just him with no one in the box and no runners on base and no game to be won or lost and no wild pitches being counted. But hey, let’s give the Pirates their moment in February.

I’m going to miss Russell Martin. Sure, there were times when Chris Stewart or Steve Pearce gave me more confidence at the plate than Martin, but he came up with big, clutch hits and played great defense for the Yankees, and I think it was a mistake to let him leave.

The other reason I’m going to miss him is because right now the Yankees’ Opening Day catcher is either going to be Austin Romine and his 20 career plate appearances or Francisco Cervelli, who belongs anywhere other than a Major League roster.

Now I’m always the first person to say that anything the Yankees receive offensively from their catcher is a plus, and if people are going to blame the catcher for the team’s offensive problems (a lot of people did this with Martin) then they are identifying the real problem (the heart of the order). But how worried should I be about the catching situation?

Murti: I guarantee you’re going to be the one who complains when the combination of Stewart/Cervelli/Romine doesn’t get a hit in a big spot. This is where you truly become Neil Keefe again.

And I’m fairly certain Stewart will end up catching Opening Day with CC Sabathia on the mound, but that’s neither here nor there.

The Yankees don’t have a 120-game, every day type of catcher. Losing Martin hurts, but it won’t kill them. The cumulative effect of losing so many home runs might (A-Rod, Swisher, Martin, Ibanez, Chavez). It’s a pretty significant dropoff. But to your original point, the Yankees will have enough defefensive options behind the plate and will have to deal with the offensive shortcomings. It makes you realize what a luxury it was having Jorge Posada all those years. Even if he wasn’t a Gold Glove winner behind the plate, his offense was something you don’t normally see from that position.

A trickle-down effect of not having an offensive catcher, however, is the construction of your bench. Late in a game the Yankees could have two pinch-hit options if Nunez and, say Stewart are due up against a righty. If a righty started the game, chances are the Yankees starting lineup would already have all their lefty hitters in the game (Gardner, Granderson, Suzuki, Cano, Hafner). But they will likely not have more than one lefty bat on that bench (I’m assuming Dan Johnson if he makes the team). Otherwise you will have a bench that includes some combination of Nix and Nunez and Matt Diaz.

The last two years the Yankees could boast a bench that had over 600 career home runs between Eric Chavez and Andruw Jones. The bench won’t be quite so deep anymore, at least in terms of experience.

Keefe: Nothing says Opening Day in the Bronx like Chris Stewart being announced as the starting catcher! I guess things could be worse. Carl Pavano could be starting the Opening Day starter like he was in 2007.

For the first time in a long time and the first time in our now fourth season of these exchanges I’m not worried about the starting pitching. But if I’m not worried about something that’s never a good sign. Maybe it’s time to start worrying.

CC Sabathia, Andy Pettitte and Hiroki Kuroda are as good of 1-2-3 in the American League. Behind them there’s Phil Hughes, David Phelps and Michael Pineda and thankfully not Freddy Garcia. Hughes is already having back problems and Pineda is looking at a midseason return to the rotation. If Hughes’ bulging disc prevents him from being ready for the season and with the Yankees having just one off day in the first two weeks of the season and just two in all of April, who would be the strongest candidate for the opening spot?

Murti: Ivan Nova fell that far off your radar, huh?  Maybe you have forgotten all about him, and now you’re worried again.

Nova is a good bet to win a rotation spot, I think. And even though Phelps pitched well last year and could again this spring, I think his versatility is a key to the bullpen and makes him a good long man/spot start candidate. This is how I would draw it up, but so many things can happen when Opening Day is still more than a month away.

As for Pineda, there will be few daily updates on his progress since he isn’t on the same program yet as the rest of the pitchers. It’s still less than a year since his shoulder surgery. The important updates on Pineda will be in April and May with a hope that he is big league ready again in June or July. The Yankees don’t want to rush him back. They would prefer not to have any setbacks considering the investment they have made in him.

I’m sure, Neil, you will have plenty of time to moan and groan about Pineda. It just won’t be at the start of the season.

Keefe: I didn’t forget about Nova … I wanted to forget about him. There’s no doubt in my mind that Nova will be given every chance to succeed as a starter and (most likely) ultimately let me down.

I always thought Carl Pavano getting embarrassed by the Red Sox in a 17-1 loss at the Stadium on May 28, 2005 would be the worst starting pitching performance I ever attended, but then Ivan Nova had his night against the Orioles on July 31 last season when he blew a 5-0 first-inning lead by allowing seven runs in the second inning on six hits, including a grand slam, and a walk. He allowed nine earned runs (isn’t this when you and Bald Vinny do your “Nine!” thing?) in the game and followed it up by allowing seven earned runs in Detroit six days later. And then he followed that up with 10 strikeouts against the Blue Jays five days later. Ivan Nova has me so confused, but he finished the season with a 5.02 ERA and if he’s given a rotation spot, I’m scared he will get too many chances before he’s removed of it. (See: Freddy Garcia, 2012.)

This Saturday will be the first baseball of the year even if it’s fake and in less than six weeks we’ll be in the Bronx for real, actual, meaningful baseball. I would like to think that between now and Opening Day I won’t need to bother you to be reassured that this isn’t the year when the Yankees finally bottom out like the 2012 Red Sox, but I know there will be an issue to address between now and April 1 at 1:05 p.m. I will keep your email and phone number handy.

Murti: Jeter joked the other day that he didnt’ get to talk to Mariano very much this winter because Mariano changed his phone number. Not that I’m comparing either of us to either of them, but it does give me an idea.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 20, 2013

John Tortorella Thinks the First-Place Canadiens Are a Bad Team

John Tortorella didn’t have much to say after the Rangers’ 3-1 loss to the Canadiens, but he said enough.

There isn’t much to say about a 3-1 home loss to the best team in the Eastern Conference and John Tortorella proved that after Tuesday night’s embarrassment.

Tortorella provided no insight into what the eff happened to the Rangers between Sunday night and Tuesday night, with or without Rick Nash (who he also didn’t provide any information on) because why would Tortorella need to tell anyone why his team can’t seem to consistently hold or increase a lead?

It was another night where the power play put up a zero and the Rangers’ power play now has three goals in 27 opportunities in February and the man advantage is dead last in the NHL at 10.9 percent for the season. It was another night where the Rangers outshot their opponent and didn’t win and another night where they failed to convert high-quality scoring chances. And it was another night where Brian Boyle failed to score a point, extending his scoreless streak to seven straight as the Tortorella favorite now has one assist in 12 games this season. But he did lead the team with six hits! Hits!

But for everything I say about Boyle (all of which is true), it was a full team loss against the Canadiens. Henrik Lundqvist said, “They play it extremely boring” and I’m not sure if he was praising or trying to mock the Habs, but maybe it’s time the Rangers played “it” boring. Because if playing it boring gets you two points every game and first place in the conference, well that’s way more fun than losing.

After the Rangers lost to the Devils two weeks ago, I said I would start a tradition on Keefe To The City and analyze John Tortorella’s postgame press conference after every Rangers loss. I missed the 4-3 shootout loss to the Islanders on Valentine’s Day because it was Valentine’s Day and if I was watching hockey instead of celebrating it then I would certainly be watching hockey on Valentine’s Day next year. So here’s John Tortorella after Tuesday’s 3-1 loss to the Canadiens.

On the game as a whole.

“I thought it was probably one of the worst hockey games I’ve been involved in. Both teams. But they were better than we were.”

There’s no doubt it might have been one of the worst games Tortorella has ever been involved in, but that would mean that he doesn’t remember the Rangers’ 3-0 loss to the Penguins at the Garden on Jan. 31.

I’m not really sure how Tortorella can stand there after losing a home game to the top team in the Eastern Conference and say that both teams played poorly. Not only did the Canadiens beat the Rangers on the road, but the Canadiens played the Hurricanes at 7:30 p.m. on Monday night in Montreal and won 3-0. 23 hours and 30 minutes after the Canadiens-Hurricanes game started, the Canadiens and Rangers began play at Madison Square Garden. In less than 24 hours the Canadiens beat the current 3 seed in the Eastern Conference (thanks to Gary Bettman’s division winner system) and then flew to New York City and depending on what time they arrived at their hotel in New York (I’m guessing early Tuesday morning) they either beat the Rangers the following night or that same night.

The Canadiens deserve a pass for poor and sloppy play and 15 shots on goal. The Rangers, however, last played on Sunday at home against the Capitals. They slept at their own homes in their own beds on Sunday and Monday night and the only travel they had to endure was to the team’s practice facility and to Madison Square Garden. Maybe just maybe Tortorella shouldn’t be grouping the Rangers’ effort with the Canadiens’ effort?

On the icing that was waved off and led to the Canadiens’ first goal.

“They told me that they were yelling to Michael, “No icing” because they said he was shielding the player when he was going back for the puck. They said they didn’t think he was skating completely going to the puck. Doesn’t matter. That doesn’t cost us the game. No excuse there. Two bad teams playing and we were worse than they were.”

Even though Tortorella believes this play didn’t cost the Rangers the game, and yes they deserved to lose anyway, the play did have an impact on the outcome of the game since every play does whether or not he will admit it. After praising his team’s effort in a loss to the Devils just two weeks ago, Tortorella did say, “No excuse there,” so I have to give him credit for not talking about how well the team played despite what the scoreboard said. But let’s look at the last sentence of his quote, which sounds very similar to how he opened his postgame press conference.

The Canadiens are the hottest team in the Eastern Conference and have won five straight games, outscoring opponents 15-5. Three of those wins have come on the road and all five of them came in a one-week period. They are in first place.

The Rangers have lost two of their last three games, all at home, and their only win in the three games came against the last-place Capitals. Last Tuesday they blew a three-goal lead with 11:16 left to play in Boston, but won in a shootout. Last Thursday they blew a two-goal lead after the first to the Islanders and lost in a shootout. In seven of their 15 games they have been held to two goals or less and have scored just three goals in the last seven periods. They are in ninth place.

How is the team in first place just as “bad” as the team in ninth place that they just beat? How is the team in first place “bad” at all?

Tortorella kept it short with the media after the loss and finished with this gem before walking away.

“That pretty much sums it up, huh?”

A poor effort in a home loss following a day of rest with nothing to show for on the power play? Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Read More

Blogs • NHL

Feb 19, 2013

The 2012-13 NHL All-Animosity Team

It’s the first ever NHL All-Animosity Team.

Last week during the third and last (well the last for now) Rangers-Bruins game, Milan Lucic took exception to the way the Ryan McDonagh plays hockey and decided he was going to try to prove that he’s tough. This wasn’t the first time the two had had sort of mixed it up since last March, Lucic didn’t like that McDonagh didn’t like that Lucic hit from behind. So Lucic, the owner of 30 penalty minutes in 2013 and 555 career penalty minutes (in 371 games) decided that McDonagh and his 66 career penalty minutes (in 136 games) was someone worth bullying.

But this is who Milan Lucic is. He’ll try to intimidate the guys that are in the league because they can play and every once in a while he will prove to those that are in the league even though they can’t play that he is in the league because he can. And it was this latest example of Lucic’s “toughness” that led me to create the first edition of the NHL All-Animosity Team the way I had for MLB.

Five years ago this list would have been a lot easier to make. Ten years ago, this list would have written itself. But in 2013, things are a little trickier. It actually took time to complete a defensive pair (and it’s not even a real defensive pair) for the team when in 2002-03 I would have had to make three separate weeks of cuts just to get it down to six or eight.

But to go along with the MLB All-Animosity Team, which will celebrate its fourth season this spring, here’s the first edition of the NHL All-Animosity Team. (Note: Brian Boyle wasn’t ineligible to make the team.)

FORWARDS

Milan Lucic
I’m not sure there’s anything left to be said about Lucic that wasn’t captured in the opening of this column. But if I could add anything to justify his placement on this team it would be his unnecessary running of Ryan Miller and that Boston fans so badly want him to be Cam Neely 2.0 and some are even crazy enough to think that he is. (FYI: He’s not and it’s not even close.) And there’s nothing worse than a Boston sports fan overrating their player’s talent and ability. (Hey, it’s Trot Nixon!) Also, according to Jack Edwards, Lucic still hasn’t lost a fight.

Matt Cooke
Show me someone outside of Pittsburgh that likes Matt Cooke and doesn’t have the last name Cooke and I will show you a liar. Cooke has become the unanimous number 1 choice as the most hated player in the league (though Raffi Torres really wants that spot), and had I not cared about this column flowing, I would have listed him first instead of Lucic.

Cooke has supposedly changed his dangerous ways and knack for hits and cheap shots that make you wonder what goes through someone’s mind right before they decide to go through with a hit like this.

But it’s not the hit from behind on Fedor Tyutin that I will always think of when I think of Matt Cooke. When I hear Cooke’s name I will always think of him starting the end of Marc Savard’s career with an elbow to the head, which he wasn’t suspended for. And while Cooke continues to play, Savard is left tweeting things like this one from Nov. 8 or this one from Dec. 17. No big deal.

Cooke has been suspended five times and four of those have come while with the Penguins. (If Colin Campbell had never been the league disciplinarian, that number could be doubled.) After being suspended for the remainder of the 2010-11 regular season and the first round of playoffs the year for elbowing Ryan McDonagh in the head, Cooke said, “I don’t want to hurt anybody. That’s not my intention. I know that I can be better.” At the time, no one believed him. I’m not sure if anyone does yet.

Alexander Ovechkin
You probably didn’t expect to see this name here. He’s the cleanest player of the group and a Top 3 talent in the world. But for me Ovechkin has been a problem as I have had to argue against him in what seemed like a never-ending Crosby vs. Ovechkin debate that has now ended with Crosby at the clearly better player.

Ovechkin has 15 goals and 14 assists in 29 regular season games against the Rangers and has been a key player in two first-round exits for the Rangers (2008-09 and 2010-11). On top of that, it seems like every time I get to see him in person he doesn’t do anything (which is both good and bad), including on Sunday night at the Garden and the first time I ever saw him play on Jan. 26, 2006 in Boston, he missed a shorthanded breakaway and then also failed to score on a penalty shot. Give me Crosby every day of the week.

DEFENSEMEN

Zdeno Chara
Jack Edwards will likely tell you that Chara is the best defenseman in the league, but he’s the same guy who thinks fights are decided by whichever plays ends up on top of the other player on the ice. Is there anything worse than when broadcasters talk about Chara’s 108-mph slap shot in the Skills Competition in a real game? No, there’s not. Because there are a lot of times in real games when you get to sprint untouched from the blue into a still puck in the slot and rip a bomb into an open net. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg that is the lovefest for the 6-foot-9, one-time Norris Trophy winner.

It’s tough to say that Chara won’t fight or fight frequently since there aren’t many willing opponents to go against his reach, but unlike Lucic, when Chara picks his spots, he picks them correctly, except when he intentionally tries to injure someone like Max Pacioretty (listen to Jack Edwards blame it on the geometry of the rink), which I wrote about after it happened. But it’s not tough to say that outside of being a massive body on the ice with the longest stick in the league, Chara’s game is overrated by everyone and anyone willing to form an opinion based on his name alone (except for maybe Mike Milbury who thought that Chara, Bill Muckalt and the pick that turned into Jason Spezza was worth Alexei Yashin). But Chara has always been good at standing in front of the net on the power play, which has always been good for a good laugh when rebounds appear at his feet.

Maxim Lapierre
I know Maxim Lapierre isn’t a defenseman, but here’s the thing: there are a lot more forwards in the league to hate than defensemen (probably because there are a lot more forwards in the league than defensemen), so for the sole purpose of not trying to fake hate someone for the sake of this team, I’m going to make a forward play defense for the sake of this team. And when you’re talking about Maxim Lapierre, it’s easy to bend the rules and make exceptions and change things to make sure he’s part of something that includes “Animosity” in the title.

It was hard to pick a Western Conference player since the Rangers play the Canucks once a year and won’t play them at all this year, but Lapierre’s antics go back to his time when he was in the Eastern Conference with the Canadiens. And any Bruins fan taking exception for Lucic and Chara making the team should forgive me for including the 2010-11 Final agitator.

I’m not sure which of the dozens of Lapierre cheap shot moments or examples to break down here, but I think this attempt to draw a penalty against fellow Animosity teammate Zdeno Chara proves his worth to this team. And on top of me breaking the rules and putting a forward on defense just to get him in the lineup, Lapierre is part of the first tier of the “Athletes I Hate To Look At” List, which is led by Josh Beckett. And I’m not the only one who thinks so since someone made a video of his many punchable faces from one game.

The problem with Lapierre is that even though he plays the game in a way that no one should play the game, he does it within the rules because the rules allow for players like him to run around without the fear of paying the price for their actions. But in order to fix that, the NHL would have to care about the game, its integrity and the fans, and there’s a better chance of me giving Nick Swisher a welcome applause when the Indians arrive in the Bronx this season than there is of the NHL caring about any of those things ever.

GOALIE

Martin Brodeur
Was there any other choice?

It’s simple: If you’re a Rangers fan, you don’t like Martin Brodeur. If you’re any other fan, you (most likely) like Martin Brodeur. (Unless you’re a fan of the Ten Commandments.)

Brodeur has been a part of the Rangers-Devils rivalry for 20 years now. Twenty! And when I watch highlights from the ’94 season (since those are all the memorable moments the Rangers have provided in the last 19 years) I can’t believe that he’s still the Devils goalie.

I have friends that try to discredit most of (and sometimes all of) Brodeur’s career by citing the depth and system Lou Lamoriello built around him, and I will agree that there is some truth to the situation he was put in in 1993-94 and the one he has played in since. But that’s sports and there’s no way of knowing if Brodeur would be the NHL’s all-time winningest goalie as part of another franchise or if the Devils would have three Cups if someone other than Brodeur had been their goalie.

In 2008-09 this theory looked real when career backup Scott Clemmensen went 25-13-1 for the Devils with a 2.39 goals against average and .917 save percentage. The theory looked even more real in 2010-11 when injuries to the core of the Devils forced Brodeur to be outstanding and he posted a career-low .903 save percentage and posted a sub-.500 record for the first time in his career (though age could obviously be cited as a factor). But then Brodeur had to go and record 31 wins in 59 games in 2011-12 and beat the Rangers along the way to his fifth Stanley Cup Final appearance at the age of 40 even if he didn’t look like the three-time Cup winner in the process.

Brodeur isn’t the same goalie in 2012-13 at 40 that he was in 2002-03 at 30 when he won his first of four Vezinas. But my animosity for him remains the same.

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 13, 2013

Dreaming of a Rangers-Bruins Postseason Series

The Rangers and Bruins met for the last time during the regular season, so an email exchange with Mike Hurley was needed to look back at the three meetings between the teams.

Thanks to some awesome scheduling from the NHL, the Rangers and Bruins won’t meet again this season unless it’s in the postseason. After 12 games, the Rangers and Bruins have played their entire three-game schedule against each other for 2012-13 and it’s going to take a seven-game series this spring if the growing rivalry is going to get a new chapter this season.

With the season series coming to an end, I decided to fill the email inbox of Mike Hurley from CBS Boston with garbage until he finally responded and agreed to an email exchange. OK, so I really didn’t have to beg him since he had nothing else going on (and usually doesn’t), but he wanted me to make it sound like it was really hard to get him to do this exchange since he’s “really busy.”

Keefe: I wanted to be in Boston last night for Rangers-Bruins and I wanted to be at Halftime Pizza before the game eating the best slices in Boston (there are only one or two others place in the entire city worth eating pizza sober at) and pounding their massive draft beers that for some reason taste better than draft beers from anywhere else. But the NHL went and scheduled the second and last meeting between the two teams on a Tuesday night, so I did watch the Rangers-Bruins game and I did eat pizza and drink draft beers, but I did it over 200 miles from TD Garden.

After blowing a two-goal lead to the Bruins in the third game of the season at Madison Square Garden, the Rangers blew a three-goal lead in the last 11:16 on Tuesday night. And while you have to credit the Bruins’ heart (or their “hearts of lions” as Jack Edwards referred to it) for their miraculous late-game comeback, I’m going to also discredit the Rangers’ shot-blocking strategy, which is actually more of a negative than a positive for the team’s defense and the reason for the Bruins’ third-period effort.

Henrik Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world. The best goalie in the world needs to see the puck and he needs to see the shot. He doesn’t need to be playing from behind screens and trying to anticipate whose stick the puck will end up on when Ryan Callahan and Dan Girardi simultaneously sacrifice their bodies and seasons like Secret Service members trying to protect the President. Yes, the Bruins erased a three-goal deficit in the third period and scored twice with an empty net, but none of it would have been possible without some perfect rebounds courteous of too much traffic created in front of the Rangers’ net by the Rangers themselves.

The Rangers did come away with two points and managed to get four of a possible six points against the Bruins this season, but they let the Bruins pick up points in the final minutes of each of the last two games. And while it was good to see the Rangers win their third straight and win on the road in Boston, I get the feeling that no one in Boston views last night’s loss as a loss and that’s not good for the Rangers or me or anyone. These two teams will hopefully meet again this spring and the last thing the Rangers need is the Bruins believing they can always come back against them and that they are never out of a game, and despite losing twice to the Rangers, the Bruins must feel like they have the Rangers’ number. If the Bruins are practicing today, I’m sure the mood in their locker room is of a team that won on last night and not of one that lost.

I guess whenever anything goes wrong like it did in the third period there is someone to blame and someone to praise, but am I am discrediting the Bruins’ comeback too much and placing too much of the blame on the Rangers? And did you get a goody bag with your TD Garden dinner on Tuesday night that looked like everything you would find at a five-year-old’s birthday party?

Hurley: For the record, because of awful traffic due to the blizzard, I got to the Garden late and had no time for dinner, so I ate an oreo brownie, a fudge roll, a big pretzel with mustard, a cup of popcorn and a plate of M&M’s and gummy worms for dinner in the press box. I am 7 years old and everyone knows it, so it’s OK.

I do think you’re right to discredit the Rangers a bit. On 99 out of 100 nights, Anton Stralman’s weak wrister doesn’t beat Tuukka Rask, and on probably 90 out of 100 nights, Derek Stepan’s shot gets stopped easily with the glove. So on a night when they don’t have a somewhat gift-wrapped 3-goal lead, they might not be so fortunate to leave the building with two points.

That said, the Bruins do deserve some credit. They realized against that mess of bodies and No. 30 in net, the only way they were scoring was going to be on a rebound. Andrew Ference’s point shot was intentionally low, and Nathan Horton banged home the rebound. Dennis Seidenberg intentionally shot at Milan Lucic in the slot, and the redirect on Lundqvist led to an open net for David Krejci. And though Brad Marchand just got a lucky break for his goal, that was a pretty good snipe. So it’s not as if the Rangers blew the lead to the Flames or anything.

But it was a blocked shot that led to that opportunity for Marchand to score the game-tying goal, which allowed the B’s to walk away from the season series with four out of six points in the season series as well. So you’re not crazy for thinking the shot-blocking strategy can work against them. You are crazy for a lot of reasons, but not that one, I suppose.

Keefe: For the record, you told me about four hours before the game that you were going to eat healthy and detox after your brother’s wedding weekend. But really, I don’t think you had any plans other than to eat those things for dinner whether there was traffic or not.

When I see Rick Nash do the things he did to the Bruins defense and then to Tuukka Rask, I can’t help but think how they would have gotten past the Devils last May if they had traded for Nash last February. (Yes, I would still trade Chris Kreider for Nash if it was still an option.) And when I see the things that Marian Gaborik does like Nash, I can’t help, but think about how the Bruins have no one like Nash or Gaborik though Tyler Seguin will one day be Boston’s version of those two. And when I realize that the Bruins don’t have a true superstar (even though Pierre McGuire thinks Patrice Bergeron’s is one of the best players in the league), I wonder how they are so good even without Tim Thomas. But then you watch them play and you realize why they are so good.

The Bruins, for some unknown reason, find a way to score despite true scoring ability and a power play that makes even the Rangers not feel so bad about their man advantage and more importantly they find a way to win and win all types of games. I can’t explain it and I’m not sure if it’s even explainable because a team with that roster shouldn’t be this good without their best player (the Conn Smythe winner turned social media guru).

I know you’re probably going to say depth and defense and you might even talk about Claude Julien (I said “might”), but help me out here: Why are the Bruins so good? And why are they so good even without a single player whose jersey you would want to buy and wear?

Hurley: Well for one, Rask is a great goalie in his own right. He led the league in goals-against and save percentage in 2009-10, so it’s not like he’s some stiff off the street. Then you have Julien’s system, which above all else requires responsibility in your own end. That’s why Seguin barely played as a rookie — he wasn’t going to be put onto the ice until he could learn to play in the defensive system. Something tells me that as a kid, back-checking and getting sticks in passing lanes wasn’t drilled into the head of a kid as talented as Seguin.

So with that system, they’re rarely out of games. The 3-0 deficit against the Rangers was odd in that regard. And while they may not have a Steve Stamkos, they’re not short on talent up front. Nathan Horton is a big-time player. All the guy does is score big goals. The Bruins wouldn’t have made it out of the first round in 2011 if not for Horton, and his absence last spring was the reason the Bruins were wiped away in the first round.

Patrice Bergeron lacks flash, but if you were to assign grades to parts of his game, he’d get A-minuses across the board. He’s also won 63.6 percent of his faceoffs, which quietly goes a long way toward earning victories. Brad Marchand has a bad reputation for just being an agitator, but he’s a talented player who has a knack for scoring and has never been afraid of any moment or situation. David Krejci can be a wizard with the puck on his stick (still not a Marc Savard, but a decent knockoff) and Seguin is always a scoring threat every time he’s on the ice.

Add in third-liner Rich Peverley, who’d likely be a top-six forward in a lot of cities, and a fourth line that contributes while rarely making mistakes, and you just have a solid hockey team.

(I said hockey in case you were confused if I was talking about a football team or something.)

Oh, I should’ve mentioned, they’re also big on saying things like “compete level.” Julien hasn’t done an interview in the past five years without assessing his team’s compete level, and it’s spread to Peter Chiarelli and Cam Neely and now everyone who talks about the team.

It means “trying hard.” Yes, the millionaire hockey players need to be rated on whether they’re trying hard or not.

Regardless of its apparent stupidity, it really seems to work. It’s very rare you see the Bruins just lay a complete stinker, and teams know when they’re playing the Bruins that they’re in for a long battle. A lot of teams can’t handle it.

Keefe: Is Andy Brickley saying “compete level” yet or is he too busy talking about “points being at a premium” the way Edzo drops “active sticks” on everyone?

Everyone is talking about the Rangers and Bruins meeting again in the postseason for the first time since the 70s, you are one of these people, but a lot of these people are saying it’s going to happen. A lot of people said this last year too, but they forgot that eight teams make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference and just because people want a series to take place doesn’t it mean it will. And if it doesn’t take place in the quarterfinals then a lot has to go right for it to happen at all.

It’s been so long since these two teams have met in the playoffs and the New York-Boston rivalry has taken so many twists in the last 10 years that I don’t know what to expect if this series ever takes place and I don’t know if I even want it to. When the Yankees play the Red Sox, the Yankees are supposed to win. When the Knicks play the Celtics, the Celtics are supposed to win. When the Giants play the Patriots, the Giants always win. But what happens if these two teams meet again this year in the postseason? Who would have the upper hand? I can’t imagine this series would be good for my blood pressure especially coming in the beginning of baseball season. Maybe I will just pull for Rangers-Devils again.

Hurley: I’d like to see it happen because unofficially, without looking it up, I can state with complete confidence that every single Bruins-Rangers game in the past four years has been on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and has been a one-goal game, almost always 1-0 one way or the other. That’s all factual. Don’t look it up though.

What happens if they meet? That’s why we want them to meet — it’s impossible to predict. The Rangers have the edge in offensive firepower, but so did the Canucks in 2011. It would be captivating hockey, and honestly whichever team emerged from that series would probably be too beaten, bruised and exhausted to go on a Cup run. But I wouldn’t mind watching it. Maybe even while enjoying some Halftime.

Keefe: OK, I looked it up. Here are the last 15 Rangers-Bruins games going back to 2009-10, which are the four years you told me to not look up.

NYR 4, BOS 3 (SO)
NYR 4, BOS 3 (OT)
BOS 3, NYR 1
BOS 2, NYR 1
NYR 4, BOS 3
NYR 3, BOS 0
NYR 3, BOS 2 (OT)
NYR 5, BOS 3
NYR 1, BOS 0
BOS 3, NYR 2
NYR 3, BOS 2
BOS 2. NYR 1
NYR 3, BOS 1
NYR 3, BOS 2
NYR 1, BOS 0

That’s 11 of 15 games that were decided by one goal. You were close.

It does feel like all of their games have been on Saturday or Sunday afternoons and they were all started by Tuukka Rask, which is weird considering over that time period Tim Thomas was the best goalie in the NHL. (Well, he was according to voters, but anyone who watched Henrik Lundqvist play behind awful teams know that it was King Henrik who has been the best goalie in the league for several years now.)

Only three of those games weren’t decided after three periods and one of them was on Tuesday night. While shootouts are fun when your teams wins, they are usually a letdown unless Rick Nash gives you a YouTube-worthy goal or unless Pavel Datsyuk is participating in the shootout. You have been a strong advocate of getting rid of the shootout and I’m on board with the idea. But what’s the solution? Is it 10 minutes of 4-on-4? Is it five minutes of 4-on-4 and then five minutes of 3-on-3? How can we make it so that the action that we saw in the five minutes of overtime on Tuesday night doesn’t end abruptly to have a breakaways decide a great game?

Hurley: 1. Rask started most of those games because Timmy T couldn’t handle the lighting at MSG! Remember? The lights were different for Tim!

2. You’re such an awful person for throwing my 10-minute, 4-on-4 period in there like you thought of it. Let the record show that’s my solution.

Actually, for years I (mostly jokingly) argued that the NHL should have five minutes of 4-on-4, and if it’s still tied, then five minutes of 3-on-3, and if it’s still tied then 2-on-2, and if it’s still tied then GOALIE DEATHMATCH AT CENTER ICE.

Because that’s a little extreme, and because we’d run out of goalies pretty quickly, I propose a simple 10-minute period of 4-on-4 hockey. I freaking love 4-on-4 hockey. I’ve been to three games at the TD Garden this season that have featured full five-minute periods of overtime, and they’ve all been thrilling. It’s like taking the best players on the planet and throwing them into an arcade game for five minutes. D-men get forced out of their comfort zones to be a part of odd-man rushes, then they get stuck out of position and lead to another odd-man advantage going the other way. Goalies are forced into hyper-mode, and the game is an all-out frenzy for 300 seconds.

Then they stop it abruptly and start a breakaway contest.

It makes no sense.

If you were showing an alien around earth and wanted to introduce it to the sport of hockey, you could show it five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime and the little freak would be in love with hockey forever. Five more minutes of that, and how many ties would we really end up with? You’d have to think that with 10 minutes of all that open ice, one team is going to be able to bury one goal.

And why do we hate ties so much to begin with? Is it really because fans don’t like the feeling of going home after a tie? For one, since when does the NHL give a crap about how fans feel? But even more so, when has that ever been a consideration in a league deciding the rules which govern its standings?? That’s insane. And thirdly (I could go until 12thly but I’ll stop), don’t fans feel worse when they leave a game which their team lost in a shootout than they would if their team had just tied? This isn’t rocket science here. Why are we having shootouts?

Oh, and if you take away the automatic point of making it to overtime, with a tie resulting in one point apiece and an OT win giving two points to the victor and bupkis to the loser. That would only make that 10 minutes of 4-on-4 overtime even better.

And I’m not even someone who out and out hates the shootout. I just prefer watching hockey.

Keefe: You told me today you were going to give short, concise answers because no one wants to really hear what you have to say. So much for that like your diet.

I don’t really miss ties because I had seen my fair share of ties in real life as a child, but you’re right the NHL doesn’t care about the fan at all, so why start by eliminating ties and changing the record books and point system and goalie’s records? It doesn’t make sense. If Gary Bettman is going to be the worst commissioner to ever run a major sports league in North America, he might as well go all the way with it.

Bring back ties! Bring back the red line! Add “obstruction” to penalties again since penalties aren’t already the result of “obstructing” something! Have North America vs. the World for the All-Star Game and bring back the Goalie Goals competition to the Skills Competition! Sign a deal with FOX! Let them make the puck glow again!

The NHL.com video player is currently the worst piece of technology available and it works like something from 1999, so why not just change everything in the league back to a time when Jaromir Jagr led the league in scoring with the Penguins, Ron Tugnutt posted a 1.79 GAA and Byron Dafoe was playing goal for the Bruins? There’s a good question: What happened to Byron Dafoe? That might be an entire email exchange itself. “Bruins Goalies Between Andy Moog and Tim Thomas.” I think I know what our next email exchange will be about. And if it isn’t about that I’m sure we’ll talk again between now and Opening Day in the Bronx.

Hurley: I’m not sure what happened, but I’m nearly positive your brain just completely stopped working for a few paragraphs there. I’m not sure how it all came out in English. I don’t even know what to say. I don’t know when we’ll talk again, but how about this — don’t email me. I’ll email you.

Read More

Blogs • Yankees

Feb 7, 2013

Breaking Down Mark Teixeira’s Admission to Breaking Down

Mark Teixeira admitted in a Wall Street Journal inteview to being overpaid and isn’t really concerned with his production or what the fans think of him.

A.J. Burnett is gone. Nick Swisher is gone. A-Rod is basically gone even if he isn’t financially gone. Mark Teixeira is still here. So that makes Teixeira the default fall guy for the combination of his on-the-field and off-the-field antics.

Is it fair that Teixeira is the default fall guy? That depends who you ask. But I’m not asking anyone. I’m telling you he is. The sad thing is, he’s telling you he is too.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran an interview with Teixeira, in which he basically said everything I have been writing about for the last three seasons and everything every fan has openly yelled at him at the Stadium after one of his infamous pop-ups with runners in scoring position. He spoke like a guy who is still owed $90 million of guaranteed money over the next four years from the Yankees and with his teammate owed $114 million over the next five years and facing a second round of PED investigations, maybe Teixeira thought, “Nothing is going to happen to me no matter what I say.” And with no one really paying any attention to anything Yankees-related other than to a guy who might never play baseball again, opening up to Daniel Barbarisi and telling him everything that everyone is thinking, but no player would ever say must have seemed like a great idea.

But really why would Teixeira open up about how bad he has been since his first season in New York? Why would he tell everyone that he doesn’t care if they think he sucks or that’s he’s overpaid? Why would he admit that if he isn’t productive it won’t bother him? Honestly, I have no idea. But it’s a never a good thing when your first baseman, who’s owed $22.5 million a year through 2016 is basically telling Yankee fans that production, and therefore winning, aren’t exactly his priorities anymore.

With Mark Teixeira opening up about his career is in decline and how he doesn’t deserve the money he is making, I had to take a better look at his quotes and try to make sense of it all.

“I looked at the first six or seven years of my career, I was in my 20s, it was easy. I wasn’t searching for the right formula. To think that I’m going to get remarkably better, as I get older and breaking down a little bit more, it’s not going to happen.”

Mark Teixeira isn’t going to get better at baseball. He’s not even going to try to return to the player he was in 2009. If he has to be Jason Giambi Part II for the next four years with the Yankees, that’s OK with him.

“Maybe I’m slowing down a tick. Look, I’m not going to play forever. Eventually you start, I don’t want to say declining, but it gets harder and harder to put up 30 [homers] and 100 [RBI].”

You don’t want to say declining? Here are some of your numbers starting with 2009 and ending with 2012.

Hits: 178, 154, 146, 113
Doubles: 43, 36, 26, 27
HR: 39, 33, 39, 24
RBI: 122, 108, 111, 84
AVG: .292, .256, .248, .251
OBP: .383, .365, .341, .332
SLG: .565, .481, .494, .475

Since you don’t want to say you’re declining. I will say it for you. You’re declining! (Don’t tell Rob Neyer this because he will chalk it up as just three consecutive years of “bad luck.”)

How about Teixeira casually slipping in that little bit about “breaking down a little bit more” before saying without a doubt he will never be 2009 Mark Teixeira again? Nothing to see here about a significant piece of the Yankees offense foreshadowing that he might not be playing full seasons anymore.

“This is my 11th year. I’m not going to play 10 more years. I want 5 or 6 good ones. So that would say I’m on the backside of my career. And instead of trying to do things differently on the backside of my career, why not focus on the things I do well, and try to be very good at that?”

You think you do three things well? I would argue you do one, maybe two things well. But instead of trying “to do things differently” or improve the things you don’t do well, which are way more than three, just stick to being OK at some things and really bad at other things like hitting in April and hitting the other way and hitting with runners in scoring position since those things aren’t that important. For only $15,432.10 per inning I wouldn’t be willing to try things differently either.

“I have no problem with anybody in New York, any fan, saying you’re overpaid. Because I am. We all are.”

Well, thanks for clearing that up Mark. I thought guys who hit .251/.332/.475 and made $22.5 million were being accurately compensated. Now that you have told me they aren’t I will no longer think that. Thank you for clearing that up.

“Agents are probably going to hate me for saying it. You’re not very valuable when you’re making $20 million. When you’re Mike Trout, making the minimum, you are crazy valuable. My first six years, before I was a free agent, I was very valuable. But there’s nothing you can do that can justify a $20 million contract.”

Casey Close probably had to be hooked up to a respirator after reading that line from his client and even though it’s the most truthful sentence ever said by any baseball player, you don’t want to hear your $180-million first baseman saying he can’t justify his contract.

“You can’t make everybody happy no matter what. I need to concentrate on what I do well. And what I do well is hitting home runs, driving in a lot of runs, and playing great defense.”

No, you can’t make everybody happy, but you could try to make at least some people happy.

Mark Teixeira does hit home runs even if 2012 was the lowest home run total of his career (24). He does drive in a lot of runs even if 2012 match the lowest RBI total of his career (84). He does play great defense even if he forgot how to play it in the postseason.

“I want to be the player who hits home runs, drives in runs. I’d love to get back to the player that I’ve always been, but if I hit .250, .260, instead of .280, so be it.”

Translation: I want to be great and try to earn my $22.5 million per year and $138,888.89 per game. I want to hit home runs and drive in runs and be the guy the Yankees signed to an eight-year deal in 2008, but my $180 million is guaranteed whether I hit .250 or .260 instead of .280, so eff it.

Read More