fbpx

Blogs

BlogsNHL

A Face-Lift for the NHL Playoffs

The odds of filling out a perfect NCAA bracket are 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 1. I’d like to think the odds of not getting a shot on goal during a four-minute power play are close to the

The odds of filling out a perfect NCAA bracket are 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 1. I’d like to think the odds of not getting a shot on goal during a four-minute power play are close to the same. But that’s what happened on Sunday when Marian Gaborik got high-sticked by Zdeno Chara, and the Rangers wasted a double minor against the Bruins in a must-win game.

The Rangers’ season came to an end on Sunday, three weeks before their last game is scheduled. Now sitting five points behind the Bruins for eighth place, and four points behind the Thrashers for ninth, only three points separate the Rangers and the lowly Islanders. A 3-5-2 record since the Olympic break has the Rangers closer to being the worst of three teams in the tri-state area than being in the postseason right now. However, after watching them fail on six power-play opportunities and once again leave Henrik Lundqvist out to dry, last place is where they belong.

There is nothing more depressing than watching regular season games that have no meaning. And with the Rangers ending their season on Sunday, the Knicks having ended their season in November and my NCAA bracket being destroyed by Kansas, it’s going to be a long 13 days until the Yankees and Red Sox meet at Fenway Park on Easter Sunday.

Maybe the Rangers not making the playoffs was actually a good thing. For one, it clearly shows Glen Sather that the team needs change (though he likely won’t make the necessary changes), and it probably would have just been depressing to watch the Capitals sweep the Rangers in four straight.

Even though a glimmer of hope still remains for the Rangers’ chances to make the postseason, they don’t deserve to – at least not under the current playoff format. But the current playoff format has a place for teams that finish .500 or barely better. And in the Eastern Conference, there are multiple spots in the postseason for teams in that category.

The NHL currently lets 53% of its teams into the postseason – tied with the NBA for the most playoff teams among the major sports. And the only reward for the top teams in the NHL is home-ice advantage for Games 1, 2, 5 and 7. Maybe home-ice is enough of an incentive for teams to finish at the top of their conference in the regular season, but in the era of cookie-cutter arenas, the idea of home-ice advantage ended when the lights went out on places like the Boston Garden, Montreal Forum and Maple Leaf Gardens. Home-ice advantages today are few and far between, and it’s hard to understand how “home ice” could be enough of a reward for a team that played better than .700 hockey for more than six months.

Sure, it would already be a daunting task for the currently eighth-seeded Bruins to take down the top-seeded Capitals in a best-of-seven, it’s not improbable. It’s not as improbable as it should be, and if Tim Thomas or Tuukka Rask were to get hot for a few days in April, the Capitals could be joining the Rangers at Alpine Country Club before the first of May.

It might be hard for the Bruins to eliminate the Capitals in the first round of the playoffs, like it would be for any eighth seed to upend a first seed, but it should be a lot harder. There needs to be more of an incentive for teams to finish at or near the top of their conference, and there should be as much punishment as there is reward for teams that find the second season via the back door.

Under the current playoff format, there are three seven-game series for each conference and then the Stanley Cup finals, which is also a seven-game series. The 1, 2, 3 and 4 seeds are granted home-ice advantage in the first round and then the matchups reseed in the second round to determine the home-ice advantage. Using the Eastern Conference, if the playoffs started today, the matchups would be:

1. Capitals vs. 8. Bruins

2. Penguins vs. 7. Canadiens

3. Sabres vs. 6. Flyers

4. Devils vs. 5. Senators

The 16-team format has been used since the 1993-94 season, and it is the only format I am old enough to remember, and therefore the only format I have really ever known. I am OK with 16 teams making the postseason in the NHL, but how you get those 16 teams is a different story.

I have always wondered how the top teams in the league could be better rewarded for their regular-season success, and maybe it’s the 100 or so hours of college basketball or the college hockey playoffs that has finally given me the answer I have been searching for, but I think have finally found the solution to fairly modify the NHL postseason.

In the new-and-improved postseason, 10 teams would last past Game 82. The top six teams would clinch playoff berths and the bottom four teams would play to decide the final two spots in the conference.

Here are the top 10 teams in the East right now:

1. Capitals
2. Penguins
3. Sabres
4. Devils
5. Senators
6. Flyers
7. Canadiens
8. Bruins
9. Thrashers
10. Rangers

The Capitals, Penguins, Sabres, Devils, Senators and Flyers would be in the playoffs. The Canadiens, Bruins Thrashers and Rangers would play to decide the seventh and eighth seeds in the postseason.

The last day of the NHL season this year is Sunday, April 11. Under the new format, on Monday, April 12, the Canadiens, Bruins, Thrashers and Rangers would begin two three-game series. The teams would be seeded for the mini series in the order that they finished the regular season and the matchups would be:

7. Canadiens vs. 10. Rangers

8. Bruins vs. 9. Thrashers

The higher seeds (Canadiens and Bruins) would host every game of the three-game series. The winners of each series would fill the seventh and eighth seeds in the postseason. Once the eight seeds are determined following the conclusion of the three-game series, the postseason would return to its current format of seven-games series.

Under this proposed format, you are forcing the bubble teams to play on consecutive days right after finishing the regular season, in which they would have likely already been playing with a mentally-draining postseason mentality. You are rewarding the seventh and eighth seeds by allowing them to host the entire three-game series, while also punishing them for an average regular season by making them win an additional series just to reach the real postseason.

This way, the higher seeds in the conference get a few days of rest before the two-plus month playoff grind begins, and the top two seeds in the conference get the luxury of hosting a team that spent the last few weeks of the regular season fighting to play in the postseason, and then had to fight some more in a three-game mini series just to reach the actual postseason. There would finally be a real incentive for teams to finish atop the conference.

Not only is this format good for the top two seeds in both conferences, it is also good for the league as a whole. It would give teams that wouldn’t have made the postseason otherwise an alternate but also laborious route in, even if they would wind up meeting a rested top seed in the first round. It would make more teams eligible down the stretch for the 7, 8, 9, and 10 seeds, creating excitement for franchises that would have likely been dormant over the final month of the season. It would give the NHL the excitement MLB gets from its small postseason field and rare one-game playoffs, the stimulation the NFL playoffs generate from a one-and-done format and the theatrics the NCAA Tournament produces from being “March Madness.”

The NHL would be able to generate revenue through the two additional series, and they would be able to sell it as the prelude to the postseason. There is no doubt that the short series could create the sort of drama needed to build a bigger audience for the game, and with the actual postseason taking place over April, May and June, only real hockey enthusiasts remain attracted to the playoffs the entire time. The short series could give the the casual fan a quick fix for playoff hockey, and it might be enough for those new and interested fans to stick around for the long haul.

There is no reason this format can’t be implemented by the NHL. It keeps the current format intact, while also making a fair and just postseason for the teams that deserve to be in the postseason. The postseason is the ultimate reward for the regular season’s elite. It isn’t meant for the average and below average, which is it what it is currently designed for.

Last week during the Bruins-Hurricanes game, Andy Brickley said that “points are at a premium at this time of the season for the Bruins” – a phrase that has always made me laugh. A win is still two points and an overtime or shootout loss is still one point. The points aren’t any more valuable or “premium” now. What he should have said was “points are imperative” or “scarce” at this time of the season because the Bruins waited until the final weeks of the season to play with urgency.

The same goes for the Rangers as they try to salvage what is left of their most disappointing season in the post-lockout era. If the Rangers had played with consistency at any point this year, they wouldn’t find themselves with their backs against the wall as the season winds down, and they run out of possible points and time.

Success down the stretch will result in the Bruins being rewarded with the eighth and final seed in the postseason. Success all season for the Capitals will give them the top seed in the Eastern Conference and home-ice advantage throughout the postseason. But one more home game in a possible seven-game series isn’t enough disparity between a team that played outstanding for six-plus months and one that played outstanding for one month. The Capitals and whichever team emerges as the best in West deserve more. They at least deserve the opportunity for a few extra days rest and the chance to play a tired and banged-up team that slipped in through the back door in the first round.

Read More

Blogs

Five Things from the First Round

March Madness is rarely ever madness. It’s usually more like March Mediocrity. For a tournament based around the upset, the impossible comeback, the feel-good story and the half-court buzzer-beater, it’s a tournament that is hardly

March Madness is rarely ever madness. It’s usually more like March Mediocrity. For a tournament based around the upset, the impossible comeback, the feel-good story and the half-court buzzer-beater, it’s a tournament that is hardly ever defined by these things.

Thursday was unlike any first-round day I can remember. It had everything you could ask for in a day of 16 games, and then some. If you needed to explain March Madness to someone who had never seen or heard of it, Thursday became the textbook example of how March Madness should look.

Eleven underdogs covered the spread and seven of them won their games outright. At 12:49 a.m., on Friday morning, just over 12 hours after BYU and Florida tipped off the day, the final buzzer sounded on New Mexico and Montana, ending Montana’s season and the first day at the same time. But even after watching college basketball for 12 straight hours on Thursday, it left me wishing there was a fifth round of games set to tip off in the 1:00 a.m. hour on Friday morning. Friday at noon just seemed like too long of a wait after Thursday’s results, even though it seemed unrealistic to think that the emotional swings of Day 1 could be replicated for a second straight day.

Friday would have been a good tournament day any year other than 2010. There were four upsets and seven underdogs covered, but compared to Thursday, it was a letdown. But when the first day of the tournament includes seven games decided by three points or less and three games that went to overtime with one going to double overtime, it makes it a tough act to follow.

The first 24 hours of tournament basketball lived up to the excitement that the first round makes possible. There were enough close scores and close calls to make you believe that this year might include a Christian Laettner, Lorenzo Charles or Tate George, and enough upsets occurred to make you believe that there might be a George Mason in this year’s bracket. Murray State gave the world some new footage for future buzzer-beater ads, and like Murray State, Ohio, Old Dominion and Cornell have given people reason to believe in Cinderella stories again.

I don’t care that my bracket looks like Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel managed it. I’m just happy to see teams without last names on the back of their jerseys shooting lights out from behind the arc, and big-name schools with big-name players exiting the tournament every hour.

After two days of basketball and 24 hours of actual games, there has been a lot thrown at viewers. To this point, the tournament has been like a semester of work taught in a week, and I’m not even sure I have been able to process everything that has happened after one round of play. But here are five things the first round made me think about in what has truly been “madness:”

1. The Big East isn’t as good as advertised
The majority of regular season college basketball I watch is Big East basketball. Actually I would say 90 percent of any non-NCAA tournament college basketball I watch is Big East basketball. This is mainly because all of the local teams are from the conference and also because it is believed to have the most elite teams and the top talent in the country.

I pick my bracket every year with a Big East bias and always advance every Big East team to at least the second round. But after the first-round debacle, the Big East and I aren’t really on good terms.

It hurts me to say, but maybe the Big East just isn’t as good as it is cracked up to be. I mean you can’t lose of three of four on Day 1 and have losses to No. 11 Old Dominion, No. 11 Washington and No. 14 Ohio and a near loss to No. 15 Robert Morris and think your credibility will remain intact. And if you’re Rick Pitino and Louisville, how do you start a game down 22-4 to a Pac-10 team?

Three of the bigger names in the conference (Luke Harangody, Scottie Reynolds and Greg Monroe) all had forgettable performances. The trio did little to convince anyone on the national level that they are some of the most talented players in the country. And they also managed to make it possible for basketball enthusiasts to question who they are compiling their regular season stats against. If the Big East can’t win in the tournament, just how bad are the teams from the conference that didn’t make the tournament?

2. No need for 96 teams
If you thought that expanding the tournament to 96 teams was a good idea, then the first round should have changed your mind. In a down year for elite teams and true contenders, the upsets were aplenty and it is obvious the committee had a tough time seeding the teams that did qualify.

The addition of 32 more teams will just water down a talent pool that was already watered down this year. If the NCAA wants to take away the importance of the regular season and the conference tournaments, then a 96-team tournament is a great idea. But if they want to keep with tradition and make a decision that makes the most sense with finances aside, then keeping the tournament as it is would be the right choice.

But who am I kidding? In the end, the NCAA sees dollar signs for a bigger tournament as they get closer to negotiating a long-term deal for the TV rights. And the NCAA doesn’t care that the 2009-10 UConn Huskies would be in the NCAA Tournament under their new format, they just care about maximum profit. Whether or not that comes at the cost of talent or the postseason’s integrity is irrelevant.

3. Sloppy seeding
Everyone loves a good upset, but this year, upsets have become the norm. Seven underdogs won on Thursday and another four won on Friday with 18 underdogs covering the spread in the first 32 games. Maybe it goes back to the fact that there is a lack of elite teams this season, but aside form the No. 1-seed’s games, just about every game was entertaining all the way through.

Take Notre Dame for example. The Fighting Irish were a team that wasn’t even in the tournament just a couple of weeks ago and without Harangody playing a significant role down the stretch, it looked like they wouldn’t even make the bubble. But a decent finish for Notre Dame got them in the tournament and they were seeded as No. 6 team. Now maybe some people agree that that s a seed they deserved, but it just doesn’t make sense that a team that nearly missed making the tournament could be seeded in the top half of the teams. But Old Dominion ousted them early on the first day to start a trend throughout the first round.

7-seeds went 1-3 against 10-seeds, and 6-seeds went 2-2 against 11-seeds. There shouldn’t be that match equality between teams seeded that differently, and maybe all of the upsets that occurred weren’t upsets at all. Maybe they were just products of poor team evaluation by the committee.

4. Jimmer could be the next Stephen
There isn’t anyone who isn’t pulling for Jimmer Fredette and BYU (unless you have Kansas State advancing in your bracket). Fredette put on a show in the first round with his unorthodox layup style and his sharp shooting, as BYU knocked off Florida in double overtime.

Fredette seems to be this year’s player who has the chance to make himself a lot of money if he can keep BYU in the win column and advance to the Sweet 16. Like Stephen Curry did with Davidson a few years back, Fredette has a chance to turn himself into a household name and build some serious draft stock.

I have talked about Jimmer with every person I have talked to over the last two days about the tournament. For those that have seen him, we have talked about how badly we are pulling for him and BYU to make a long run in this thing. And for those that haven’t seen him, I have hyped him up so much that anything short of 30 points against Kansas State will probably be a disappointment for anyone that has listened to me. But watch Jimmer in the second round on Saturday and you will be happy you did. At least I hope you are.

5. A bad slate for Gus
It’s too bad viewers of the tournament didn’t get their first taste of Gus Johnson until Friday with all of the nail-biters and close games that took place on Thursday. And it’s even worse that he was stuck in Buffalo where the games were decided by 28, 8, 7 and 23 points.

The Vermont upset of Syracuse that, for some unknown reason, people seemed to believe would happen didn’t happen. Gus was held from creating new levels of bedlam with a true upset (Missouri over Clemson was a game of equals) in his region, and it was a shame that he was taken out of the games he broadcasted because of such lopsided scores. Hopefully Gus will be given a chance to give a call for the ages over the weekend. The tournament isn’t the same without him getting at least one impossible shot to fall.

Read More

BlogsRangers

Rangers Running Out of Time

On Tuesday, there were several possibilities for how the bottom of the Eastern Conference standings would look at the end of the night. The Rangers were in a position to take over possession of the

On Tuesday, there were several possibilities for how the bottom of the Eastern Conference standings would look at the end of the night. The Rangers were in a position to take over possession of the eighth and final spot in the East (a k a the chance to lose to the Capitals in the first round), and also in a position to lose more ground on the Flyers, Canadiens and Bruins.

With Rangers-Canadiens, Bruins-Hurricanes, Flyers-Predators all on the same night, I envisioned the opportunity to start this story off by saying, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance?” Just six days after I questioned John Tortorella’s future with the team and compared his Rangers tenure with the men before him, he had a chance to erase the 1,598 words I used to question his job along with Glen Sather’s.

If the Rangers could take care of their own business and get some help from the Hurricanes and Predators, maybe Tortorella could have this team on a run to the playoffs that very few thought was possible. But all that talk of urgency the team spent preaching about during the week ended up just being talk.

On a night when the Rangers could have moved into eighth place and prevented the Canadiens from separating themselves from the pack even more, the Rangers put together one of their worst home performances of the season. But the four-point swing in the standings between the Rangers and Canadiens wasn’t the only bad news for the Blueshirts. It was just the tip of the iceberg.

After the Rangers were able to tie the game at 1, I flipped to the Bruins-Hurricanes game where Carolina had cut into the Boston’s lead and trailed just 2-1. Then I flipped to the Flyers-Predators where Nashville had a commanding 3-1 lead and a goal away from putting that game on ice. Things were quietly falling into place for the Rangers if they could score the next goal. But when the Canadiens took the lead against the Rangers on a garbage deflection of Artem Anisimov’s skate, everything began to fall apart at the same time across the league.

The Rangers lost, the Canadiens won, the Bruins won, the Flyers fought back to earn a point in a shootout loss and Game 70 of the Rangers’ season was used up. Maybe it wasn’t all bad. I guess the Flyers could have gotten two points instead of just one.

Here is what the standings looked like at 7 p.m. on Tuesday night:

6. Flyers, 76 pts
7. Canadiens, 76 pts
8. Bruins, 72 pts
9. Rangers, 71 pts

And here is what the bottom of the East looks like now:

6. Canadiens, 78 pts
7. Flyers, 77 pts
8. Bruins, 74 pts
9. Rangers, 71 pts

The Canadiens tried to give the Rangers the game on Tuesday and so did the refs with timely power-play opportunities handed to the Blueshirts, including man advantages at 11:20 and 19:05 of the third period. But the Rangers wanted no part of their power play, as they went 0-for-5 with the man advantage and recorded a total of two shots on the five chances.

The Rangers had to put a dent into their direct competition, but instead, they ran in place while their competition took off for the finish line. And while saying the right things might sound nice, it really doesn’t matter at this point. All that matters is getting two points at the end of the day, and for a team that talked about playing with a postseason mentality and a do-or-die mindset all week, they couldn’t have played with less desire against a team they are chasing.

“Every game is a Game Seven for us, no matter who we are playing,” Henrik Lundqvist said before Tuesday’s game. And Lundqvist is right. It’s just too bad he is the only one that plays like it. You could make a case for Sean Avery too after his last two games, but it took him nearly the entire season and a recent benching to wake up, and there aren’t enough games left for Tortorella to wake up the rest of the team by making examples of every player.

Lundqvist continues to stand on his head while his anemic offense tries to muster some shots and even sometimes a goal or two. He continues to play outstanding down the stretch, and is always there to field questions after the game whether the team wins or loses. He has yet to pull a Billy Wagner and throw his teammates under the bus for inconsistent play, but King Henrik is only human and at some point, you’d have to think that the last few years of carrying the team on his back will get to him.

No one expected the Rangers to run the table and climb to the top of the Eastern Conference standings, and it’s unfair to think that they will win every game over the final weeks of the season. But you’d like to think they would at least come to play at home against a team they are chasing. Then again, maybe it’s just wishful thinking asking for a team that is under .500 at home to start playing with a purpose in their own building with just four games remaining at MSG.

Is the Rangers’ season over? No. And wins over St. Louis on Thursday and Boston on Sunday will certainly enhance their playoff odds. But what have the Rangers done to make anyone believe in them down the stretch? With two wins in their last seven games and Sean Avery as their offense, the Rangers aren’t exactly deserving of a playoff berth, and maybe that’s for the better. Maybe finishing ninth instead of eighth will keep the Rangers from being dismantled by the Capitals in the first round and save the tri-state area further embarrassment from the Blueshirts.

Chris Drury referred to the Rangers’ losing ways as “immaturity” after being embarrassed by the Canadiens. “That’s what it’s been all year,” Drury said. “Simple answer.”

Hopefully the Rangers will respond to “immaturity” because they didn’t seem to understand “urgency” or “Game Seven” or “postseason mentality” or “do-or-die,” and there isn’t enough time left to try any other motivational phrases.

Read More

BlogsRangers

John Tortorella’s Time Could Be Running Out

Type “fire john tortorella” into Google and you will get nothing. Well nothing relevant. Sure, there are “about 17,800” articles that match those keywords, but none of those 17,800 search results suggest that he should

Type “fire john tortorella” into Google and you will get nothing. Well nothing relevant. Sure, there are “about 17,800” articles that match those keywords, but none of those 17,800 search results suggest that he should no longer be coaching the Rangers. The majority of the results involve the keywords, just not in that order, and instead commend Tortorella’s job as coach and beg for Glen Sather to be fired. That is actually the solution that makes the most sense to improve the Rangers, but at this point it’s unrealistic.

Since Glen Sather took over as general manager of the Rangers in 2000, he has fired four head coaches including himself. He has used the head coaching position as the scapegoat for his managerial mistakes and in turn built a revolving door behind the Blueshirts’ bench. He has spent his time as GM acting without consequences, and why wouldn’t he? If it took James Dolan as long as it did to fire Isiah Thomas, you’d have to think Sather is safe until at least 2020, no matter what product he puts on the ice.

Last February, after winning just twice in 12 games, Tom Renney became the latest casualty of the Glen Sather era, as he was relieved of his coaching duties with the Rangers sitting in sixth place. At the time, it was the only move Sather could make to shake up a club that he had allowed to go stale. He had cornered himself by yet again constructing a roster of overpaid former stars; stars that made names for themselves by achieving success away from New York. Despite proclaiming to get younger, Sather resorted to his old ways of signing aging free agents with their talent in decline, and his poor decisions from the previous summers were exposed as the level of play heightened in the final weeks of the season.

The Rangers were good enough to make the playoffs last season if Renney kept his job, just like they had been the three seasons prior. But in a state of panic, Sather hit the gong on Renney’s tenure in a last-second attempt to wake up an uninspired team that was simply going through the motions. With Sather’s “superstars” underperforming and the team watching their postseason berth slip from their grasp, a 2-7-3 slump was a good enough reason for Sather to pull the trigger on Renney. If Sather refrained from making a coaching switch, it was likely that blame would fall upon him if the Rangers missed the postseason. By putting a fresh face behind the bench, he could direct the media’s attention at the new coach and use the new coach as his newest scapegoat for his own mistakes if things didn’t work out.

On Feb. 23, 2009, Sather fired Renney and brought in John Tortorella, who went 0-3-1 at the helm of the Rangers on an interim basis in 1999-00. Just five years removed from winning the Stanley Cup with Tampa Bay, Sather was bringing a big name to Broadway. He wasn’t giving someone their first NHL coaching job like he did with Bryan Trottier in 2002-03, and he wasn’t rolling the dice with an unknown. He was bringing in a proven coach and someone whose in-your-face style and zero-tolerance policies were the anti-Tom Renney. Sather thought that Tortorella would love being back in New York and that New York would love Tortorella back. So far it hasn’t worked out that way.

Tortorella finished what Renney started by keeping the Rangers in the postseason picture last year. But in the first round, the team let a 3-1 series lead slip away to the heavily favored Capitals, and Tortorella became the focal point of the series after some unruly behavior with Capitals fans. A series that was supposed to be about the play of Henrik Lundqvist and Alexander Ovechkin became centered around the coach who was just over a month into his new job, and it looked like Tortorella and New York weren’t going to the be the match Sather hoped for.

With Tortorella in his first full season as Rangers head coach, the team has been everything it wasn’t when Renney was the coach, and it has been everything it was before Renney became the coach. The team is reminiscent of the inconsistencies that defined the organizations from 1997 until the lockout when the postseason was always just out of reach. Trying to predict which Rangers team will show up on a given night has become as challenging as predicting which Knicks team will show up. And like the Knicks, the “good” Rangers rarely show up two games in a row.

The team has been treading water all season, managing to stay in the thick of things in the playoff race, but really just prolonging their inevitable mathematical elimination, which is now creeping up fast with the recent success of the Flyers, Canadiens and Bruins.

So, my question is this: What has John Tortorella done to this point to remain as head coach of the Rangers?

I am certainly not a believer in changing coaches every season and giving coaches only one season to get their feet under them in a new city. But then again, I don’t decide who coaches the Rangers, and going by the history and the standards of the man (Sather) who does decide, it seems like a fair question.

Sather fired Renney – the Rangers’ winningest coach since Mike Keenan – for going 2-7-3 despite still being in playoff position. Renney had brought the Rangers to the postseason three times in three years and had them in sixth place in his fourth season before he was let go. He coached four Rangers teams that went to the postseason, which happen to be the only four Rangers teams to go to the postseason during the Glen Sather era.

In Tortorella’s first full season with the team, they have been chasing the Top 8 for most of the winter and the last time they had at least a 50 percent chance of earning a spot in the playoffs, according to Coolstandings.com, was Jan. 22 – well over a month ago. The team relies on success from two players – Marian Gaborik and Henrik Lundqvist –and despite outstanding seasons from both, the Rangers are still closer to be in 13th place in the East then they are sixth.

Hope is not yet lost, though it’s getting close. The Flyers, Canadiens and Bruins aren’t losing and even when they do, they don’t in regulation. Seven points separate the Rangers and the Flyers, five points separate the Rangers and the Canadiens and three points separate the Rangers and the Bruins. The Rangers have 16 games remaining and a possible 32 points available for grabs if they were to finish the season with a historical 16 wins in a row.

Since 2000, the lowest point total an eighth seed has gotten into the playoffs with has been 83 (2002-03). At that rate, the Rangers would need to average one point a game the rest of the way, and that certainly won’t be good enough this year considering the teams they are trying to catch are well ahead of that pace and aren’t slowing down.

Maybe John Tortorella’s work isn’t done in New York even though he has done little to nothing to earn another season. There is still a chance he can extend the Rangers’ consecutive postseason appearance streak to five, but time is running out on their ability to control their own fate. Coolstandings.com gives the Rangers a 21.5 percent chance of reaching the postseason entering Wednesday’s game, which is surprisingly up 5.1 percent since the league resumed play after the Olympic break. The odds are against them, but the schedule favors them in that they play Philadelphia three more times, Montreal once and Boston once with a chance to steal points from their direct competition.

During the Knicks-Hawks game the other night, Mike Breen told Clyde Frazier that he wished the Knicks could celebrate the team’s 1969-70 championship every year. Now he probably said it because it was enjoyable to talk to and be around the players and personalities from that memorable team, but he definitely also said it because that season was one of only two winning memories – the other being the 1972-73 championship – that the franchise has to live off of from the last 40 years.

This June will be 16 years since the Rangers’ last Stanley Cup celebration. The team has run out of ways to milk the memories of the 1993-94 team and run out of numbers to retire and players to recognize from the last Cup winner. After it looked like the franchise was headed in the right direction post-lockout, this season has set the Rangers back and erased any confidence Rangers fans had of returning to the finals in the near future.

It doesn’t look like the organization will have any new memories to remember and relive with Glen Sather leading the way, as his time in New York continues to be an epic disaster despite his illustrious career in Edmonton. It might not be John Tortorella’s fault that the Rangers are in the position they’re in, but eventually he will take the fall for the team’s failures, not Sather. The same thing happened to Tortorella’s predecessor and the same thing will happen to his successor.

Read More

BlogsMLB

The Mets with the Most to Lose

No one knows what to expect from the Mets this season. If everything goes right and they catch a few breaks they could potentially win the division, though the wild card is probably a more

No one knows what to expect from the Mets this season. If everything goes right and they catch a few breaks they could potentially win the division, though the wild card is probably a more realistic goal. But as good of a chance as the Mets have of making the postseason, they have just as good if not better a chance of missing out on the postseason for the fourth year in a row. It’s hard to argue for or against any prediction when it comes to the 2010 Mets because it’s hard to predict success or failure for a club that has erased all expectations.

On Monday, Daniel Murphy told Mike Francesa that the team “is built to win now,” and Omar Minaya looked like the guy from the Miller Lite commercial trying to say “I love you” when he told Francesa that he believes in his team this year. Forget Mets fans, not even the players or management know what to expect this season.

The Mets are at a crossroads after gradually getting worse since their Game 7 defeat against the Cardinals in the 2006 NLCS. If you had told me before Game 7 that the Mets wouldn’t win a single postseason game over the next three years, I wouldn’t have believed you. I don’t think anyone would. As a Yankees fan, I was legitimately scared of the Mets’ rise in 2006 and the idea that they might make a run at being the toast of the town; the same way the Jets did this winter by becoming more relevant than the Giants. But here we are, 31 days away from Opening Day 2010 and the Mets’ last postseason win was against the Cardinals in Game 6 of that NLCS.

The conversation of breaking up “the core” of the Mets has become as much a part of summer as Wiffle ball and lemonade, and Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel’s job statuses have become day-to-day as this point. Mets fans are at their breaking point if they haven’t already broke, and what has gone on the last three seasons can’t go on any longer … at least not with the same team and front office.

Right now, Mets fans are just happy baseball is back because it gives them actual games to talk about, and there is no longer a need to dwell on last season. But how long that happiness lasts will depend on how well the Mets perform. Stuck in the same city as the World Series champions and in the same division as the National League champions, Mets fans are in a unique position that no other fan base in professional sports can relate to.

The Mets will either return to the postseason this year and buy some much needed time with their fans, or they will extend their October-less streak and the Wilpons will change the look of the team like a dirty diaper, which is what they have become. Some players will stick around even with another losing season in Queens and maybe some front office executives will avoid the ax. But there is definitely more at stake for certain members of the organization than there is for others if the Mets don’t win. Here is what’s at stake for those players and personnel if the Mets lay another egg in 2010.

5. Does that offer in Boston still stand?
Jason Bay is living the high life … for now. He is the new guy in town and everyone wants to rave about his well-mannered personality and delightful clubhouse presence. But it’s also spring training and no one cares if the new guy is hitting the ball out of the park as long he is showing up to the park, isn’t injured and is friendly with the media.

Bay went from Pittsburgh to Boston and went from being “That Canadian guy from the Pirates that we only get to see during the All-Star Game” to being “The guy who made Red Sox fans quickly forget about Manny Ramirez.”

The same traits that Mets fans are using to praise Bay – his nice-guy routine and vanilla personality – will be used as ammunition against him if the team isn’t winning. As bad as the Boston media can be with just one team in town to worry about, Bay has no idea what the New York media and the city’s fans are capable of when things begin to go south.

Bay gave up the opportunity to hit in the middle of the order for a World Series contender to be the new guy on a team that could possibly win its division or be mathematically eliminated in July. He gave up a situation he was already comfortable in and a situation he already experienced success in. Now he will either be responsible for helping bring the Mets back to prominence or for helping extend a dark period in the franchise’s history. If it’s the latter, he will be left to think about “what could have been” in Boston.

4. 36 million regrets
If I’m Omar Minaya or Jerry Manuel and I have one final chance to turn things around, I wouldn’t want Oliver Perez in my rotation. There were other pitchers and more economically sound options for Omar Minaya during the 2009 offseason, but he decided to go all-in on Oliver Perez and ended up with a busted straight.

Perez made $12 million last year. For that amount of money, the Mets could have had Bobby Abreu ($5 million) and Randy Wolf ($5 million) and $2 million left over to split among their season ticket holders as an apology for their 2009 product. Instead, their return on investment was 14 starts from Perez at $857,142.86 per start and 127 base runners in 66 innings.

Perez’s current contract hasn’t been completely Carl Pavano-esque just yet, but it’s on its way. At least the Yankees had competition went they were courting Pavano, and they were actually outbidding other interested teams.

The Mets are still on the hook for two more years and $24 million for Perez, so he isn’t exactly going anywhere. The only place he is going is to the mound every fifth day – if he can stay healthy – and the Mets are going to just have to cross their fingers and hope for the best when he starts. Otherwise, $12 million is a lot to pay a Triple-A starter.

3. The Mets’ Donnie Baseball
David Wright is the core member with the least to lose, and because of that he isn’t grouped with the other two. He is the face of the franchise and he is the player the media looks to for answers, whether that is fair or not.

When Wright had the Mets one game away from the World Series in 2006 at the age of 23, he looked like he might be the centerpiece of the first dynasty on the other side of town. Now four years later, his career is looking to be more like Don Mattingly’s than it is Derek Jeter’s, as Wright is slowly creeping up on 30 and becoming a great player who happened to play on a bunch of bad teams.

Wright is the go-to guy in the clubhouse for the media, and the most popular player on a team whose popularity rivals Governor Patterson’s. He needs to be the leader of the team on the field and off of it more than ever this season. He needs to take control of the team and make it his team now that the veterans he came up with are no longer with the club.

Wright’s home run and RBI totals dropped off drastically in 2009, and that can’t happen again in 2010, even if Citi Field wasn’t built for right-handed power. Mets fans have refrained from turning on No. 5, but now it’s officially “David’s team,” if it wasn’t already, and the success of the team will be directly related with his own performance.

2. Break up the core
I have under June 1 in the “When will the ‘break up the core’ conversation dominate the tri-state area for an entire day” pool. And if it gets to that point, David Wright will be safe, but Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran won’t be.

It wasn’t too long ago that Mets fans tried to argue Jose Reyes’ abilities against Derek Jeter’s. That debate ended the same way it did for Red Sox fans when they tried to argue Nomar Garciaparra against Derek Jeter. Now Mets fans aren’t worried about Jose Reyes being Derek Jeter, they would be happy if Reyes could just stay in the lineup the whole season.

Reyes’ contract is over at the end of the season with the Mets holding an $11 million club option on him for 2011, which they will most certainly exercise. But after that, it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen with Reyes. Maybe he will be the pre-2009 Reyes or maybe his best days are behind him. No one can be sure, but coming off an injury-plagued year and already having health problems this season, Reyes has a lot to play for and a lot more to lose if he can’t regain his old form.

Beltran is in a similar situation to Reyes after being injured for a significant amount of time in 2009. Couple that with his recent knee surgery that the Mets may or may not have granted consent for him to undergo, and Beltran is going up against some serious pressure once he returns.

Beltran has more to lose than Reyes because he isn’t homegrown and because he is older. Mets fans love their homegrown talent and they will back them up – regardless of their abilities – until they are no longer a Met. With Beltran turning 33 this season and with just one year left on his contract following this year, the Mets will be more willing to find a new home for Beltran than they will be for the other core members. It’s just a matter of finding out if another home would even want to deal for Beltran.

1. Win or learn how to use Craigslist
Jerry Manuel and Omar Minaya are a package deal, and at this point in their Mets careers, they can’t exist without each other because ownership won’t let them. And ownership shouldn’t let them.

Neither of the two will be looking at the same position with another team ever again if they can’t right the sinking ship in Queens. It either has to work out in New York or it’s back to being a first base coach somewhere for Manuel and back to scouting the bus leagues for Minaya.

Omar doesn’t deserve another chance with another manager, and Mets fans don’t deserve to have Jerry Manuel as their manager unless he can lead the team to the playoffs. Because of this, Mets fans find themselves in a Catch-22. The majority of Mets fans want one or both men replaced, but in order to do so, the Mets would have to miss out on the postseason again. No Mets fan is willing to concede 2010 and live through another season of misery in order to get a new regime, so they are going to have to live with the “M and M” boys for one more season.

Bob Melvin’s recent hiring in the Mets scouting department can’t be good for Manuel’s future and Jerry is certainly aware of this. And since Omar didn’t exactly give a straight answer to Francesa’s question asking if he no longer is making the decisions in the organization, it’s safe to say Omar knows were his fate lies as well. Winning cures everything, and it’s the one thing standing between a happy ending and a horrible breakup for Omar and Jerry in Queens.

Read More