Email Exchanges – Page 16 – Keefe To The City

May 16, 2013

Preparation for Rangers-Bruins Postseason Battle

The Rangers and Bruins are meeting in the playoffs for the first time since 1973, so obviously an email exchange with Mike Hurley was needed to talk about the latest chapter in New York vs. Boston.

For the first time since 1973 the Rangers and Bruins will meet in the playoffs. It’s the latest chapter in the illustrious history of New York vs. Boston postseason meetings and the only logical to way to handle this situation was with an email exchange with Mike Hurley from CBS Boston.

Keefe: It’s been a while. It’s actually been 92 days since our last one of these. But after what happened on Monday night and what’s going to happen between now and Memorial Day, I figured why not bother Mike Hurley. Or Michael Francis Hurley as those in Boston know you by.

The Rangers’ Game 7 win was boring and that’s the way I liked it. After the excitement of the Game 6 win at Madison Square Garden on Sunday afternoon and the 29 beers that followed, I wanted a blowout. I didn’t want to have to worry about the Capitals getting a 1-0 lead and then watching the Rangers struggle to generate offense until the clock ran out on the season. I got my wish thanks to Henrik Lundqvist and the Rangers have at least four more games left in the season.

But during the third period of the Rangers’ Game 7 blowout, I was flipping back and forth to the Bruins-Maple Leafs game and I told my girlfriend when they trailed 4-1 that I had seen this Bruins team come back from similar deficits before. Of course none of those comebacks happened in a Game 7 with their season on the line, but still, the Bruins are never out of a game and they probed that even in their losses in Games 5 and 6 to Toronto.

Sure enough, within the hour you were documenting euphoria at TD Garden on Twitter and the Bruins were alive and well and awaiting the Rangers on Thursday night.

I want to know what went through your mind from the Maple Leafs’ fourth goal until the point when Patrice Bergeron was jumping around center ice. (I only wish he rolled around like Theo Fleury.)

Hurley: Hi Neil. Thanks for emailing me. I always love it so much when you email me. It always brightens my day to see “Keefe, Neil” pop up in the inbox, so thank you.

Being in the building for Game 7 was without a doubt the most unreal sporting event I’ve ever attended in my life. I’ve been to just about every home Bruins game this year, and the volume level even in the opening minutes was far beyond any noise the home crowd had made all season. Of course, when Nazem Kadri buried the Leafs’ fourth goal, it was almost silent. You could actually hear the Leafs fans in the building cheering, and there couldn’t have been more than 500 of them in the whole place.

It’s funny, I was watching a game earlier this series from my living room when the Bruins were in Toronto, and as I tend to do when I watch sports, I was shouting, oohing and ahhing, screaming “WOOF!” and “WOW!” every three seconds. My wife looked at me and said, “How do you watch games in the press box and stay silent?” I had no answer. But whenever I am covering games, I am silent, probably because I’m work and I have something to dedicate my focus on. But man, when Bergeron released that snap shot from the blue line, once it made it past the first white jersey, I knew it was going in, and I just let out an audible, “Holy shit.”

I really don’t have the same emotional investment in the team that I did growing up. It’s only natural to have a different feeling for the team when you’re covering them for your job for several years, so it’s not like I was torn up about them losing. In fact, I didn’t really care — I was starting to make plans with all the free time that opened up on my calendar.

But when that goal hit the net, I’ve never heard a crowd get that loud. Ever. My arms actually got chills and went numb. You know me pretty well, and you know that I may be in my mid-20s and appear to be a somewhat lively person, but on the inside I am a grumpy, 80-year-old man. So for that to happen, it was just incredible. Indescribable really, but I’m just happy I got to be there to experience it first-hand.

No, nobody hacked my email to send this rainbows and sunshine message. This is really me.

Keefe: I really don’t have the same emotional investment in the team that I did growing up. It’s only natural to have a different feeling for the team when you’re covering them for your job for several years, so it’s not like I was torn up about them losing. In fact, I didn’t really care — I was starting to make plans with all the free time that opened up on my calendar.

That was the saddest, most-effed up paragraph I have ever read from you and that means a lot considering you write a lot of effed-up paragraphs, especially during football season. But I think watching your fandom dwindle and be destroyed as a member of the mainstream media and essentially a beat writer is a conversation for another day. If you finish any of your future columns with “Time will tell” or “Maybe it will happen” or “We’ll see” then I think you will finally get your wish and our “friendship” will be over. If the Giants’ second Super Bowl win over the Patriots didn’t end the “friendship” then I don’t think a Rangers’ series win over the Bruins will. So only your mindset fully transforming into that of a beat writer/reporter can end this thing.

Last year we both talked endlessly about the Rangers and Bruins meeting in the Eastern Conference finals, but the Bruins didn’t live up to their end of the bargain. This year we hoped it could happen, but the Rangers would have to make the playoffs to make it possible. We didn’t get the conference finals, but we’re getting the conference semifinals, which is still good enough for me.

It’s actually insane that these two teams haven’t met in the playoffs since 1973 when you consider the NHL postseason format and the fact that the Rangers have seen the Capitals in four of the last five playoff (or the last four playoffs the Rangers have been a part of) and the Bruins have seen the Canadiens in three of the last six postseasons. What’s that thing you say? “Sports!”

So we finally get our wish with the Rangers coming off a dominant Game 7 performance and winning four of the last five games against the Capitals and the Bruins coming off an improbable Game 7 win after nearly blowing away a 3-1 series lead. While I said during Game 7 that I fully believed in a Bruins’ third-period comeback, I also started to think about what a Game 7 loss at home and blown 3-1 lead would mean for Claude Julien. Here’s what Julien has done as head coach in the four seasons prior to this one.

2011-12: Lost Game 7 of quarterfinals to Washington at home in overtime

2010-11: Won three Game 7s in one postseason, overcame 2-0 series deficit twice and won the Cup in Vancouver

2009-10: Blew 3-0 series lead to Philadelphia in semifinals and blew 3-0 lead in Game 7 at home

2008-09: Lost Game 7 of quarterfinals to Carolina at home in overtime

Since I talk to you and other Boston sports fans frequently, there seems to be a large anti-Julien movement and it’s pretty ridiculous. The pro-John Tortorella base in New York is far greater than the anti-John Tortorella base and this is what Tortorella has done in New York.

2011-12: Lost to New Jersey in 6 in conference finals

2010-11: Made playoffs on last day of season thanks to help and lost to Washington in 5 in quarterfinals

2009-10: Missed playoffs

2008-09: Blew 3-1 series lead to Washington in quarterfinals

Based on the two resumes (and I didn’t even include Julien leading the overachieving Bruins to the 8-seed in the 2007-08 playoffs and forcing a Game 7 against Montreal), I’m not exactly sure how the perception of the two is what it is. Sure, Julien does some weird things like play Jaromir Jagr alongside two players that aren’t worthy of sitting next to him in the locker room let alone playing on the same line with him, but Julien did something in Boston that 16 head coaches before him since 1972 couldn’t do. John Tortorella acts like he’s done something in New York when he hasn’t done anything since he won in Tampa Bay nine years ago, and according to you that shouldn’t have even happened.

So why is Julien hated in Boston (for the most part) and Tortorella loved in New York (for the most part)? Or do those two perceptions only exist in the world of sports radio?

Hurley: Can a friendship end if it never really existed to begin with? I guess we’ll find out in the coming days.

As for the anti-Julien movement, it is definitely real and I definitely don’t agree with it. I understand that Claude is not the perfect coach. He’s a defensive-minded guy, and he seems averse to letting guys like Tyler Seguin run free and try to score goals. Defense is boring, and fans often get frustrated when the team goes through long scoring droughts. It’s only natural for the coach to get blamed, that’s just how it goes. Sports!

But you laid it out nicely. The guy gets his team to playoffs every single year. They don’t always make it to the conference finals, but who does? The Penguins, I think, are unanimously the best team in the NHL over the past five years, and I think most hockey fans love Dan Bylsma as a head coach. The Penguins in the four years leading up to this season have won the Cup, lost in the second round and twice lost in the first round. Injuries play a role, sure, but that’s not a whole heck of a lot better than the Bruins’ finishes the past four years.

Probably the biggest reason that Claude’s Cup win in 2011 isn’t earning him much slack these days is that things looked pretty bad for him back in the first round that year. In fact, fans were calling for his firing in December of that season, before the Bruins went on a 14-5-3 run. In Game 7, if Jeff Halpern doesn’t deflect Nathan Horton’s slap shot in overtime of Game 7 against Montreal, the Canadiens could have won that game. Julien would have been fired. Peter Chiarelli too, probably. Extensions for David Krejci, Milan Lucic … who knows? One bounce of a puck that goes the other way, and Julien would have been gone.

So the Cup win obviously secured his job for the time being, and it helped excuse the first-round exit last year. I think if they had lost to Toronto, he would have kept his job for next year, but it would have been very tenuous. He’d be a candidate for a midseason axing, and fans would largely be happy. Most of those anti-Claude fans don’t have a viable replacement in mind, they just want him gone. Maybe the Bruins could bring back Dave Lewis. Fans would be crying for Claude back after five games.

As for Tortorella, I’ll just say that had he lost his job after losing to Washington this year, I wouldn’t have been too broken up. If the Calgary Flames had been credited with the game-winning goal they scored, then maybe TORTS! wouldn’t spend his days with that poo-eating grin and I-know-everything-and-you-suck attitude. Alas, we are here, and sure enough, I don’t think either coach is in danger of losing his job, no matter what happens in this series.

Keefe: Along the lines with the “I don’t understand why fans are the way they are” perception is the idea that Tuukka Rask isn’t Tim Thomas for Bruins fans. But who is? I don’t see any other NHL goalies writing on their Facebook page about gay marriage or how Barack Obama is ruining the country. And I don’t see Tuukka Rask taking a year off of hockey in hopes of returning the following year and starting for his Olympic team.

In New York, there is a very small percent of fans who think Henrik Lundqvist is overrated (this very small group of people are unintelligent) and are quick to cite his under-.500 postseason record as a reason for being overrated. (And if being the reigning Vezina winner makes you overrated then does that mean there aren’t any good goalies in the NHL the way that BABIP suggests that there aren’t any good hitters in MLB, just lucky ones?) But if Henrik wasn’t as good as he is, he wouldn’t even have a postseason record because the Rangers offense since 2005-06 certainly wasn’t going to get him there. So Lundqvist is the beneficiary of an offensively-challenged team once again and starts games knowing that one goal could mean a loss. Put him on Pittsburgh and no one would be talking about how exciting the Islanders were for six games because the Islanders would have been run out of the first round in four games.

Henrik Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world. That’s a fact. But Tuukka Rask isn’t far behind and is certainly in the top tier of goalies in the league and I was surprised to him get snubbed from being a Vezina finalist. And for years now it seems like it’s been Lundqvist vs. Rask in any afternoon Rangers-Bruins game and now we’ll finally get to see them square off in a seven-game series.

Tuukka Rask isn’t Tim Thomas, but I’m still scared of his ability to shut down the Rangers, who have a hard enough time scoring against mediocre goaltending. I think with Lundqvist and Rask we’re headed for seven games and maybe seven total goals in the series. Would you agree?

Hurley: Definitely. I think you said it best when you said Lundqvist is the best, but Rask isn’t far behind. It’s been pretty ridiculous this season, in the few instances Rask let up a soft goal or lost a game or two, hearing people call the radio or comment online that Rask is no Thomas, as if Thomas was this perfect goaltender who never failed. Make no mistake, Thomas in the 2011 postseason was unreal, but the guy was hardly a model of consistency. Nobody let in more bad, back-breaking goals than Thomas, but because he rode off into the Facebook sunset, he’s only remembered for that glorious run to the Cup.

So it was good that the Bruins didn’t lose that first-round series, because Rask would have wrongly been blamed, and people would keep calling about how bad he is, how he can’t win in the postseason, blah, blah, blah.

But yeah, I think back to one of these talks we had, where I made an off-the-cuff comment about every single Bruins-Rangers game ending 1-0 one way or the other. Then, for the first time in your life, you did actual research, and you discovered that 11 out of the previous 15 meetings had been decided by just one goal. This year, one game was won 3-1, another one in OT and the other won in a shootout. I don’t see any reason why things will suddenly change in the postseason, when Tortorella’s and Julien’s teams bear down even more defensively.

Some people say it’s “boring” because it won’t be wide open, high-scoring hockey. But I haven’t watched a Rangers-Bruins game in years that wasn’t thrilling, so I’m looking forward to it.

Keefe: I love when people put out “Keys for the Rangers in Game 3” or “What the Bruins Must Do to Win Game 6” because really it’s all meaningless and just a waste of time for talking heads to fill space on pregame shows or for lazy writers and bloggers to meet story quotas or word counts. Because I don’t remember anyone saying, “The Rangers will beat the Capitals if Rick Nash doesn’t score a goal” or “The Bruins will eliminate the Maple Leafs if Tyler Seguin scores zero goals.” But the two best pure scorers in the upcoming series combined for 14 games played, no goals and three assists (two for Nash and one for Seguin) in the quarterfinals combined. How is it possible that the former London Knight and the former Plymouth Whaler (just went Pierre McGuire on you to see how it feels) scored zero goals combined in 14 games? The only answer I can think of is: it’s not.

This is why I’m nervous about our mutually agreed prediction of seven 1-0 games in this series. Both of these players are going to go off in this series because the law of odds and science and “being due” and everything in life says they are. They have to. And if they do, maybe this series will turn into the 2011-12 quarterfinals between the Penguins and Flyers and there will be 15 goals a game and brawls and sloppy goaltending and then NBC Sports and CBC and NHL Network and every media outlet can scrap the word “expert.”

But in real life, it’s scary to know the depth of the Rangers and Bruins if they were both able to win seven-game series with their two actual superstars contributing noting and it’s scary to think how good both of these teams can be if Nash and Seguin are Nash and Seguin starting on Thursday. I guess there’s a reason why the East was supposed to be decided between the Rangers, Bruins and Penguins and all three are part of the final four now.

Hurley: You obviously didn’t read my Bruins-Leafs Game 7 preview, in which I wrote the Bruins’ key will be to lose Dennis Seidenberg on his first shift, get Matt Bartkowski going offensively, fall behind 4-1 and then turn it on in the final 10 minutes to pull off the comeback. Stories like that show why I’m an expert and why I get paid so much money.

The difference between Nash and Seguin is that Nash is a perennial all-star who’s topped 30 goals seven times in his career. Seguin is a 21-year-old, and while he looked like Wayne Gretzky over in Switzerland during the lockout while wearing his flame jersey for being the team’s leading scorer, I don’t think we really know what he is yet. At least, we don’t know what he is beyond his potential.

His goal drought hasn’t been for lack of chances. He’s just somehow, somewhere lost his finishing ability. He’s become known around here as “high glass,” as he and Rich Peverley in particular tend to miss the net by about 10 feet on most of their shots. I suppose it can be chalked up to growing pains, which are to be expected, and also the realization that though Seguin is a very good player, he’s not Steven Stamkos, who turned 22 in the middle of last season … when he scored 60 goals. This year, Seguin turned 21 and scored 16 goals in 48 games. In a full season, that’s a 27-goal pace. That’s pretty good, but not great, and I don’t think he’s the pure scorer you fear he might be. I think the Bruins are going to be a lot more worried about Nash than the Rangers are about Seguin.

But boy oh boy, the young kid from Brampton, Ontario who grew up idolizing Stevie Y sure can skate, Edzo.

Keefe: I have always been high on Seguin and I think Claude Julien’s decision to not play him at the beginning of the 2010-11 playoffs only made me higher on him. It took injuries for Seguin to get into the lineup before he single-handedly saved the Bruins’ season against Tampa Bay and saved Julien’s job. Is it too late for me to get a ticket for the “Fire Claude Julien” bandwagon? I will pay more than face value on StubHub if I need to.

I haven’t been this excited about a playoff hockey series since … well … I guess last year’s Eastern Conference finals against the Devils. (It just seems like it’s been longer.) But this series is different because it’s the first time it’s happened in our lifetime and the first time we have been able to go head-to-head with New York vs. Boston since Super Bowl XLVI.

I know at one point this series you will write a column with screen shots breaking down a head shot from a Ranger on a Bruin or you will tweet about the Rangers diving or whining about calls since that’s what you Boston writers do. And I know you will also make an excuse for a dangerous Milan Lucic play that goes uncalled because that’s also what you guys do. But I’m glad to be a part of it because it’s more fun to have those I read and follow in Boston talking about the Rangers rather than the Canadiens or Maple Leafs or Canucks and their fans.

After three regular-season meetings this year (even though they were all within the first couple weeks of the season) I believe the Rangers match up well against the Bruins (and the Rangers have Henrik Lundqvist, which is a good enough reason to pick them against anyone). I don’t know if the Rangers can win in five and I don’t want to be the guy who picks the series to end in six because that’s the easy way out, so I’m going to go with Rangers in seven. I’ll see you in New York for Game 3 and you’ll see me in Boston for Game 7.

Hurley: First thing’s first: I don’t whine or complain. I lay down the law. I can state with 300 percent confidence that based on my judgment, I should be in Brendan Shanahan’s position. It’s kind of nuts, really, that the NHL hasn’t reached out to me to take that unenviable job for them. I mean, I didn’t ask to have this power and perspective, but we’re all dealt hands in life, and mine is to determine punishment on illegal hockey hits.

And this comes from you, the same person who cried for a suspension on Eric Fehr when he elbowed Derick Brassard in the chest and then followed through by scraping the guy’s chin. Just really shameful work by you, but I can’t say I’m surprised. Typical Neil Keefe stuff there, and I can’t wait for more of it over the next two weeks. And by “can’t wait” I mean I’ll probably block you and report you for spam on Twitter by the middle of Game 2.

I’m not much into predictions because they are stupid. People get them wrong 99 percent of the time, and they luck into getting them right once in a blue moon, and then they brag about it, even though the circumstances of what actually happened would have been completely impossible to predict before the games took place.

But because you picked the Rangers in 7, and because you’re always wrong about everything ever, and because it drives you crazy when people make predictions for series to end in six games, I’ll go with the Bruins in six. You can still come up to Boston for the day that Game 7 is scheduled, and I can give you some more Wiffle Ball lessons.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

May 16, 2013

Rangers-Bruins Can Rekindle Bad Memories

It’s a Rangers-Bruins playoff series and that means it’s time for an email exchange with my former freshman roommate Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers.

Freshman year of college in Boston my roommate watched me watch the collapse of the 2004 Yankees in the ALCS. The Yankees and Red Sox haven’t met in the postseason since then, but the Giants have beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl twice, which has been sweet revenge and a decent attempt at closure to October 2004. Now we have the Rangers and Bruins meeting in the playoffs and another chance for a New York sports team to end a Boston sports team’s season. I decided to email my freshman roommate Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers, to find out what his mood is entering the series and his memories of nine years ago this fall.

Keefe: I lived with you during the darkest period of my life as a sports fan: 2004-05. The NHL was locked out for the entire season despite us living 0.6 miles away from the then-FleetCenter, the New York Football Giants picked some kid named Eli Manning first overall and gave him the starting job halfway through the season on the way to a 6-10 season and then there were those four nights in October during the ALCS that will never be erased from my memory no matter how much therapy I have or how many times I google “How to forget things forever.” I just have to find a way to deal with it.

Since the 2004 ALCS as sports fans we have only had two Super Bowls as a reason to go head-to-head for a series since neither of us are living and dying by NBA results. But now we have Rangers-Bruins for the first time in our lifetimes and the first time since 1973.

I know you said that the Bruins’ Cup run in 2011-12 would buy a decades-long grace period for you and the B’s, but would a loss in this series to the Rangers, the city of New York and me put an end to the grace period?

Miccoli:Can I just put this out there? You can try to forget, but I won’t, because my favorite memory of you was when you walked out of our dorm room without saying a word after the Red Sox won Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS. I don’t think I saw you for days after that. It was actually pretty nice.

But ANYWAY, grace periods are tough. In 2011, I think my attitude around the team’s success was a little different. You could have probably gotten me to agree to permanently live on a diet of nothing but kale and beet juice (both of these things are disgusting to me) in exchange for a Bruins win. Seriously. There wasn’t much I wouldn’t agree to. With that said, a loss to the Rangers wouldn’t be the end of the world for the Bruins because really, it’s not too far out of the ordinary.

Remember when the playoffs started in what seems like years ago for both of us? I felt okay about the Bruins’ chances against any first round opponent team with the exception of the Rangers. Don’t get me wrong, I loved watching the Rangers/Bruins games over the past two years but the matchups just don’t favor the Bruins. While it helps that Marian Gaborik, another Bruin haunt, is long gone, Boston’s defense is limping into the series. Dougie Hamilton, Matt Bartkowski and Torey Krug have played a total of five career playoff games between them. Five. Five! Nobody knows what’s wrong with Dennis Seidenberg and both Andrew Ference and Wade Redden (hey! remember him?) seem to be out for Game 1. If the Rangers jump on the Bruins quick and actually feel like scoring like they did in Game 7, the first game of this series could be a long one.

Keefe:Correct me if I’m wrong, but you just mentioned Wade Redden possibly being unavailable for Game 1 as a bad thing. Yes, that just happened. The same guy the Rangers were paying top dollar to play for their AHL affiliate in Hartford. Maybe this series will be easier for the Rangers to win that I thought it would be.

You had the opportunity that only only around 18,000 people had in seeing Game 7 of the Bruins-Maple Leafs series in person. (Well, I guess it’s really less than that since you have to figure the people who left early and are going to regret it for the rest of their lives.) During the third period of that game (and I watched a lot of it since the Rangers were blowing out the Capitals), I told my girlfriend when the Bruins went down three goals that there was still a lot of time left and I had seen this team come back from similar deficits before (just not in as big of a spot). When you look at the way the Bruins played in the final minutes of all the games they lost in the series, if they had only played with that same urgency for entire games, Game 7 would have never come down to an epic comeback because there wouldn’t have been an epic comeback.

So take us through your night leading up to Game 7 and through it in person and after it since I know you weren’t confident leading into the game. And why do the Bruins wait until time has almost run out on them to play with urgency?

Miccoli:Wade Redden has been nothing but solid in a Bruins uniform. This pleases me.

Game 7 was like nothing I have ever covered or even witnessed in my life. I woke up the next morning after three hours of sleep thinking that there was no way it was real because it probably shouldn’t have been. The Bruins had no business being in that game after flat-out giving up midway through the 2nd period. It’s weird to see everyone in Boston go crazy over Game 7 aside from the last few minutes. They stopped trying for a good portion of it and only came to life in the last 12 minutes or so. I distinctly remember going up to other media members in the press box telling them to have a nice summer in between the 2nd and 3rd periods. I doubted that they’d be able to recover from two straight losses and rebound in the third. Then, the Maple Leafs remembered they were the Maple Leafs, so now here we are.

You could probably argue that the Bruins had every opportunity to wrap up the series in Games 5, 6, and in the first two periods of 7, but why not put everyone through hell with a win like that? It’s because the Bruins are inconsistent; wildly inconsistent. They were dominant in Games 1 and 3 though, and you watched what happened when they had their backs to the wall in Game 7. When they need to, they have the ability to show this incredible passion and power through. Remember the last time the Bruins and Rangers played each other? They almost did it then. Down three goals late in the third period, the Bruins came back to force overtime before eventually losing in a shootout. I guess these third period heroics are nothing new for Boston. Better that than to have the lead going into the third. They blew enough of those games this year. Checks and balances, just like the Rangers, right?

Keefe:Last year you were certain that the Rangers would play for the Cup, if not win the Cup, and your level of certainty was rejuvenated in July when they finally traded for Rick Nash. Then starting at the beginning of this season and throughout the 48-game schedule, you have reiterated your fear of the Rangers on several occasions to me.

The problem is here in New York I don’t think anyone in the city is as confident in you in the Rangers or has ever been dating back to last season because of the team strategy of “Score One Goal and Hope it Stands!” You have been overly optimistic about a team that maybe overachieved last season and underachieved this regular season. But now we will find out just how good this Rangers team is with a test against the Bruins.

Why have you been so adamant about the Rangers going on a run and fearful of them standing in the Bruins’ way? It can’t just be Henrik Lundqvist.

Miccoli:My roommate, also a Rangers fan ironically, called me the most pessimistic Bruins’ guy he’s ever met. While that might have something to do with it, I just really don’t like the matchups for the Bruins against the Rangers.

The Bruins and Rangers are incredibly similar, which makes the games so much fun to watch. They both suck on the power play, rely way too heavily on their goaltending, and play a physical game. But when it comes down to it, I think the Rangers are a notch above the Bruins. The Bruins have better depth, but the Rangers’ secondary scoring this postseason has been crucial. Aside from the Bruins’ top line of Lucic-Krejci-Horton and Patrice Bergeron, the offensive production hasn’t been there. There have been way too many passengers and not enough players who have stepped up. If the Bruins got all four lines clicking at the same time, then yes, I’d give the edge to Boston. I just haven’t seen that yet.

Plus, Lundqvist scares the hell out of me. He’s 21-7-2 all-time vs Boston with a 1.69 G.A.A. and .943 save percentage. He’s white hot right now and gets to face a Bruins team that he’s completely owned in the past. It certainly helps that any blueshirt will get in front of a puck to block the shot. Watch Boston closely here. One of their biggest weakness in the first round against Toronto was that when they shot the puck, it was right at James Reimer. There was no deviation or creativity what so ever.

I don’t know. Maybe I’m not giving the Bruins enough credit, but I just don’t like them against the Rangers. The series will go seven and every game will be close, but ultimately I think the Rangers pull it out.

Keefe: It’s going to be a long series, which has the potential to go all the way until May 29. I will be in Nantucket for Memorial Day weekend and Games 5 and 6 (if necessary, of course) and I’m sure the rivalry will be alive and well there.

This series obviously doesn’t have anywhere near the same implications and possible consequences that the ALCS did almost nine years ago. I have always said that I don’t enjoy the Yankees playing the Red Sox because the Yankees are supposed to win and there is no glory when you have everything to lose by losing and nothing to gain by winning. But with these two teams meeting for the first time since number 4 was still playing, I couldn’t be more ecstatic of what this series presents and what it will entail.

It’s not the same as if a trip to the Cup was on the line, but a trip to Pittsburgh is still good enough to me. We haven’t agreed on something since you made the pact that if the Bruins won a championship in 2010-11 you would be OK with the Red Sox being absolutely terrible for the next 10 years while the Yankees won five World Series. The Yankees have yet to win one of those five in the 10-year window, but the Red Sox had the worst regular-season collapse in baseball history and followed it up with arguably their worst season in franchise history. I’m glad we agree on something again: Rangers in seven.

Miccoli: You’re right, the series will be long. I’m planning on keeping a tally of your “Ladies and gentlemen…!” tweets directed at Brian Boyle and John Tortorella. (Have I mentioned how terrified I am of Tortorella yet? I am.) This could also be the lowest-scoring series in the history of the NHL. Would a total of 10 goals surprise you? I know it wouldn’t for me. It seems like there’s always at least one 1-0 game between these two teams. We’re due for one here.

I started to think about the Rangers’ offense a little bit more since our last email. Gaborik is gone, Nash is invisible and Richards is still overrated. Maybe this won’t be so bad for the Bruins. I mean, if they find their scoring touch and Seguin remembers how much potential he has and all of a sudden, this could be a series. These teams really are similar and I look forward to biting my nails and flinching whenever something exciting happens.

Do me a favor though: please remember to take your cell phone with you when you inevitably walk out of whatever bar you’re watching Game 7 in. You know … just in case the Bruins win and you decide to disappear for a couple of days. It’s happened before. It could happen again.

Blogs • Email Exchanges

May 3, 2013

Kentucky Derby Predictions

The Kentucky Derby is Saturday and the Rangers lost Game 1 of the quarterfinals, so it’s the perfect time for an email exchange with Brian Monzo.

The Kentucky Derby is Saturday and the Rangers lost Game 1 of the quarterfinals to the Capitals 3-1. Those two things make a perfect storm for an email exchange with WFAN producer Brian Monzo as we head into a wild weekend in sports. So I bothered Monzo for his thoughts on who he likes in this year’s Derby and what happened on Thursday night in Washington.

Keefe: I have been waiting for you to pay the invoice I sent you on the money you owe me for telling me to pick Alpha in the 2012 Kentucky Derby without even a mention of I’ll Have Another, but since that money will never arrive, I have decided to bother you about this year’s Derby instead. But just so you know, my little sister told me to pick I’ll Have Another. My little sister. And here you are, the expert who loves TVG more than hockey missing out on a 15-to-1 horse.

You have been feeding me Derby information for a few days now, but when it comes down to it in a race this unpredictable, it’s all about the name. Right now I can tell you Itsmyluckyday (10-to-1 on Sportsbook) and Will Take Charge (25-to-1 on Sportsbook) are two names that stand out to me.

I know you’re all about Revolutionary (5-to-1 on Sportsbook) because you have been telling me so all week, so tell me why Revolutionary isn’t going to be this year’s Alpha.

Monzo: You bring up some great points. Regarding Alpha, it should be noted that he went out to win the Jim Dandy and the Travers at Saratoga last summer, but yes, he didn’t run well in the Kentucky Derby. Yes, you did approach me before the race and asked about I’ll Have Another. Good job by your little sister.

Anyway, this is a really tough race to handicap. This class of horses is good, not great and trying to find the best of “good” horses is pretty tough. When I look at this race, with these horses, the way I handicap the race is by places the horses where they will go in the race and envision how the race will go.

When all is said and done, I’ve decided to go with Revolutionary as my top pick, with many horses very close.

Revolutionary is trained by Todd Pletcher and is coming off an impressive win in the Louisiana Derby. What I liked about that race was that he came off the pace and fought off a late challenge from Mylute, another horse he’ll face in the Derby. That race showed me that this horse doesn’t back down from challenges and isn’t afraid of other horses. He looked like he was going to get beat and he beared down and held for the win. Some horses will buckle and let another horse take it. He didn’t.

He drew the third post for the Derby, which isn’t great, but not awful. It should allow him to get to a position in the race he’s comfortable with. If he runs to the lead, throw your ticket out. If he stays within five to six lengths of the lead, no matter how quick or slow the pace is, he should find himself in a position to run down the leaders down the stretch. My guess is he goes off at 9-1. (He’s currently 5-to-1 on Sportsbook.)

I also love the fact that he has Calvin Borel on him. Like Borel or not, he’s a big race rider and his history in the Kentucky Derby is solid. His win with Street Sense was one of the best rides in Kentucky Derby history.

Orb is another horse I expect to run well. He closed well in the Florida Derby and will likely be the post time favorite on Saturday. Verrazano, another Pletcher horse, will be going to the lead and even though he’s undefeated, this is a tough race to hold with speed.

Since the two horses you mentioned were Itsmyluckyday and Will Take Charge, I’ll give you my thoughts on them.

I didn’t love how Itsmyluckyday ran in the Florida Derby. It was a slow race and Orb blew right by him.

Will Take Charge has been on my radar since February. His wins in the Smarty Jones and the Rebel really caught my eye. He doesn’t have a ton of speed, but if he can stay four lengths from the lead, I can see him tracking down the leaders in the final 100 yards. He is 3-for-7. He likes to win and I think he’ll go off at 30-1. I’m not making him my top choice, but I will play a small amount on him to win and will have him on many trifecta tickets.

Keefe: You mentioned Orb and how well he did at the Florida Derby and Verrazano and how he’s undefeated. Orb along with Verrazano are currently the two favorites on Sportsbook.

Last year everyone was all over Bodemeister and it was pretty much a given that he would win and it looked like he would before I’ll Have Another came out of nowhere to take the Derby. And last year it was Bodemeister and Union Rags getting all the attention before the Derby and now it seems like Orb and Verrazano should be garnering the same attention with the Derby so close on the calendar.

Why aren’t these two horses getting as much attention despite being the favorites? Why is the class of horses only “good” and not “great?” And what’s the difference between this year’s Derby and last year?

Monzo: That’s the thing though and the beauty of the Derby. A horse at 9-to-2 or 5-to-1 could be the favorite. There are now 19 horses in the race with Black Onyx scratching out on Friday morning. I’d say 14 of the 19 have a shot to win. It’s mostly about having the best trip and not being the best horse to win. Last year Bodemeister was the best horse to run, as was Went The Day Well. I’ll Have Another had a perfect trip and was able to catch Bodemeister late.

Orb is a good horse and has won 4-of 7, but I worry that his last race was too slow. He has a good closing kick and should be there when the dust settles, but I will put on my exotics tickets, not as a winner.

Verrazano is a speed horse who has run really well. He is undefeated, going 4-for-4, but running a 1 1/4 miles is a tough thing to do, especially running to the lead. Bodemeister ran as good as anyone on the lead, but couldn’t hold it. I don’t think Verrazano will win, but has a good shot of holding onto a top four spot, which is why I’m leaving him on my superfecta tickets.

There isn’t one horse that is that much better then the rest of the field. Also, not of these horses has run an epic eye opening race. Some very good races (Revolutionary in the Withers, Orb in the Florida Derby, Verrazano in the Wood), but none were extraordinary.

I’m not sure there’s much of a difference from last year. One thing that’s different if Bob Baffert, who trained Bodemeister and is a legendary trainer has no horses in the race. Todd Pletcher has five horses in the race, which is pretty crazy.

Will Take Charge is my value horse. Trained by D. Wayne Lukas with veteran jockey Jon Court on the mount, Will Take Charge has the winning instinct to pull off an upset here. He won the Rebel in March and Smarty Jones in January, as well as his maiden race in October at Keeneland. To me, the win in the Rebel showed this horse’s ability to have enough left in the tank late to chase down leaders. I don’t think he has the talent to come back from 16 lengths to win, but if he can stay four to five lengths wide throughout the race and can find a way to be two lengths off with 200 yards to go, he’ll have a fighting chance. He should carry a huge price tag too, maybe close to 30-to-1, which is a huge value play.

Revolutionary is my top pick, however. I just think the race will open up for him late. Book it.

Keefe: OK, I’m booking it. Let’s hope this goes better than it did a year ago. Now let’s talk about what happened on Thursday night in Washington.

Some people stupidly want to blame Henrik Lundqvist for the Rangers’ Game 1 loss, which to me is as ridiculous as it has been to blame any loss on him during his tenure with the Rangers. I blame the Rangers’ inability to score and their lack of discipline.

The Rangers entered the series with two goals: 1. Contain Alexander Ovechkin and 2. Limit the Capitals power-play opportunities. In Game 1, Ovechkin tied the game at 1 and the Rangers took six penalties against the Capitals, including a too-many-men-on-the-ice penalty just 34 seconds into the game. So much for accomplishing those two goals. And on top of those problems, I’m not sure what Ryan McDonagh and Dan Girardi were doing on the Capitals’ second goal when they let a full-ice pass split them for a Marcus Johansson breakaway goal.

I picked the Rangers in 5 and that pick is as good as done because after what we saw in Game 1 this Capitals team is much different than the team the Rangers narrowly beat in seven games a year ago and it’s barely the same Capitals team we saw last against the Rangers on March 24. The Rangers aren’t going to win four games in a row, so I’m OK with my pick being wrong. Let’s just hope they can win four games at all.

Monzo: Blaming Lundqvist is stupid. Like I said on Twitter, if he was the Penguins goalie they would go 82-0 and sweep every playoff series. He gets little goal support in the playoffs.

I took the Rangers in 5 as well and I’m content with that not happening now. I actually took some good things from the game. Carl Hagelin looked good and Chris Kreider looked good and Steve Eminger actually played physical.

I also think Ryane Clowe was missed because of the space he creates in the offensive zone. I think even the great Brian Boyle could be an asset here with his big body. And I noticed the Rangers often pass way too much, but when they shoot, they miss the net. (Brad Richards!) The Rangers need to fire more shots on Braden Holtby. He gives up a ton of rebounds and if they crash the net, they should be able to bang a few pucks in.

They need to improve on hitting the net and crashing the net. They also need to stay disciplined and not take penalties. They PK is good enough to hold off the Caps, but they can’t be giving the Caps six power players a game.

Rangers in 6.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

May 2, 2013

Rangers-Capitals Now a Playoff Tradition

It’s the fourth Rangers-Capitals playoff series in five years and that calls for an email exchange with Kevin Klein of Japers’ Rink.

It’s the third day of the NHL playoffs and the Rangers have yet to play a game. At this point it feels like the fourth Rangers-Capitals series in five years might never start, but then again maybe it’s a good thing that they waited until Thursday since there won’t be two days off between games at any point in the series.

Kevin Klein of Japers’ Rink joined me for an email exchange to talk about the Rangers-Capitals series and how Adam Oates brought the Capitals back to prominence and how the new head coach was able to get Alex Ovechkin back into the conversation of “Best Player in the World.” We also give our predictions for the series.

Keefe: Four years ago, I was petrified of the idea of a Rangers-Capitals series, and my worrying was proved right when the Rangers blew a 3-1 series lead.

Two years ago, I didn’t expect anything good to come from a Rangers-Capitals series with a Rangers team that couldn’t score and found their way into the playoffs on the last day of the season thanks to some outside help. Again, the Capitals had their way with the Rangers in five games and embarrassed the MSG crowd by erasing a three-goal, third-period deficit while silencing the Bruce Boudreau chants.

Last year, I wanted no part of the Capitals in the first round and no part of them in the playoffs at all. It wasn’t the same Capitals team from 2008-09, but even with a new look and style of play they forced the No. 1-seeded Rangers to a seventh game and if it weren’t for some late-game heroics from the Rangers in the series they would have eliminated the Rangers once again.

This year I feel lucky the Rangers are playing the Capitals. I’m not sure if it’s because the other two options would have been the Penguins and Canadiens, who have both dominated the Rangers in recent years, or if it’s because the Rangers were finally able to eliminate the Capitals last year. Then again, it’s never good to get a good feeling about the Rangers, especially when it comes to the postseason and who their first-round opponent might be. So before we pick this series apart piece by piece prior to Game 1, maybe you can help bring me back to reality and why I shouldn’t feel so confident about the Rangers getting the Capitals in the quarterfinals and feeling like everything magically fell into place for the Rangers over the weekend.

Klein: It’s funny you should feel lucky to face this year’s Capitals, when you feared last year’s.

This year’s Capitals boast the most lethal power play in the NHL (by more than two full percentage points) and Alex Ovechkin is back to his old self, racking up 32 goals in 48 games. Two years ago, when the Capitals ousted the Rangers in the first round, Ovechkin had 32 goals in 79 games. It’s certainly worth noting that Ovechkin’s resurgence would not have been possible without his running mate, Nicklas Backstrom, who returned to form in time with Ovi, to the tune of 40 assists in 48 games (good enough for third in the league and only three helpers off the league lead). I’ll also add that Troy Brouwer and Mike Ribeiro are having career years on the second line, so once Ovi and Backstrom hop back onto the bench, the Rangers still have their work cut out for them.

Dropping back to the blue line, last season the Rangers had the luxury of facing off against Roman Hamrlik and Jeff Schultz, two defensemen who – as you well know by now in the case of Hamrlik – aren’t exactly known for their mobility these days. It’s my presumption that Schultz and Hamrlik will be watching the games together from the Verizon Center and Madison Square Garden press boxes, a fact that most singularly improves this Capitals team over last year’s squad.

But the Capitals’ improvements never would have occurred if not for the mind of the man behind the bench. Indeed, it was Adam Oates who redesigned the power play, taking it from the middle of the pack to the pinnacle of the league. Indeed, it was Adam Oates who envisioned Ovechkin on the right wing, where he has since re-established himself as the league’s premier goal scorer. And indeed, it was Adam Oates who was standing behind the New Jersey bench last year when the Devils ushered the top-seeded Rangers unceremoniously into the offseason.

These are the reasons why you should perhaps not feel so confident. This isn’t to say that I feel confident about the Capitals’ chances against a Rangers team that played very well down the stretch, but rather to illuminate that this Capitals team should be a more fearsome opponent than last season’s.

Keefe: OK, well I just went from overly confident to terrified. Thanks?

When it comes to Roman Hamrlik, I can understand what you mean since I’m not sure how the Rangers thought the Capitals’ trash would become their reward when it comes to a 39-year-old defenseman with as many miles (1,395 regular-season games and 111 playoff games) as Hamrlik has. The man played in his first NHL game in 1992! 1992! Sure, Jaromir Jagr is still playing and he played in his first game in 1990, but he’s Jaromir Jagr and he’s playing an elite level for a 41-year-old (35 points in 45 regular-season games).

You’re right, I should be worried about Ovechkin wanting to once again be in the “Best Player in the World” conversation again and the way he has responded to Adam Oates’ coaching. With Bruce Boudreau it seemed like Ovechkin was allowed to do whatever he wanted (and rightfully so I would say), but it got to the point where Boudreau’s style became stale, not only with Ovechkin, but the entire team. With Dale Hunter, the way Ovechkin had played his entire life was changed and it took away from what makes him who he is and why he’s great. But with Oates it seems like Ovechkin finally has a coach with the right balance. And Oates’ success behind the Capitals’ bench is intriguing especially since it seems so easy for fans to respect and appreciate someone like him. Here in New York it’s not as easy to respect and appreciate John Tortorella.

How refreshing has it been to have Oates as the head coach of the Capitals?

Klein: I think that just about everyone inside of, around and in the peripherals of the Washington Capitals organization has come to the realization that Adam Oates is the best thing that’s happened to this franchise in quite awhile. Not to beat a dead horse here, but it absolutely starts with Alex Ovechkin.

In hindsight, Alex probably had a decent relationship with Bruce Boudreau that slowly degraded as the team began to struggle. We know that he didn’t have the best of relationships with Dale Hunter, and that’s because Hunter stymied Ovechkin in his insistence that Ovechkin take on the same roles and responsibilities of, say, a guy like Hunter did during his playing days.

When Oates came aboard, he embraced the idea of Ovechkin as the chassis for the Capitals vehicle. From the get-go he saw the potential for success under such a model, so long as Ovechkin was open to some considerable tweaks in his game. Oates immediately established a communicative, two-way relationship with his captain and Ovechkin has responded brilliantly. Now Oates has a happy captain, a happy locker room and inside that locker room there is a sense of trust and harmony that has been absent for a couple of years now.

It was by no means a caustic environment before, but it certainly was not as cohesive as it is now, and I attribute that coming together to Adam Oates.

Keefe: Well you’re lucky. Here we have a coach who feels entitled because of what he did in Tampa Bay nine years ago and doesn’t care that in four years here he has made it out of the first round once, made it to the playoffs twice and missed them completely the other time … despite having the best goalie in the world in his prime. No big deal.

Last season, and even the season before, Ovechkin wasn’t the same Ovechkin we had grown accustomed to. It seemed like years since a real debate could be had between who was between Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby and his postseason play wasn’t the same either. Now he’s back to pre-2010-11 Ovechkin and alone could be enough to eliminate the Rangers with the way they go into scoring slumps for extended periods of time and take untimely and undisciplined penalties.

Earlier in the season there was speculation that maybe Ovechkin needed a change of scenery and a new team, which had me wondering if the Rangers would be able to figure out a way to pay Rick Nash, Marian Gaborik and possibly Ovechkin if they had anything left to trade for him. Now with the regular season he just had and the success he experienced under Oates that dream of mine, sadly, will never come to fruition. But maybe it’s for the better since I’m a Crosby guy anyway.

When things were going poorly in Washington, did you ever think that Ovechkin might not possibly find his old scoring ability again and d did you ever think that maybe a change of scenery was needed for him?

Klein: Well, I hate to tell you, but your dream of a Nash-Gaborik-Ovechkin tandem would have been foiled by Brad Richards’ nauseating contract. As for Ovechkin needing a change of scenery, I don’t buy it. Any of that talk was more than likely born of a bored, starved, media market or sensationalist hockey pundits.

Did I ever worry that Ovechkin wouldn’t return to form? Sure, but I’ve been preaching for some time that Ovechkin’s decline in production was a result of the changeover and resultant inconsistency in on-ice philosophy from the end of the Boudreau era to the start of the Oates era. I thought that last year, despite the sour aroma that came with discussions of his play, Ovechkin demonstrated tremendous capability in scoring 38 goals while playing most of the season under the not exactly offensively-minded Dale Hunter.

Besides, the guy has the “C” on his jersey and has only worn it for a few years now. If an organization slaps that letter on a jersey then ships the player away, it probably speaks more to the organization than it does to the individual.

Keefe: So you’re saying the Flyers aren’t exactly run by the most intelligent people for trading their captain, Mike Richards, and then watching him win the Cup that same season with the Kings? Hey, if you’re anti-Philadelphia, you’re talking to the right person.

This Rangers-Capitals series is being regarded as the best first-round series in the playoffs and I think rightfully so. You saw what the Penguins did to the Islanders and what the Bruins did to the Maple Leafs on Wednesday night, and outside of Canada, the Canadiens-Senators series just isn’t that intriguing.

My confidence prior to the start of this email exchange has cooled off with thoughts of Ovechkin becoming Ovechkin again, the feared Washington power play and the idea that Oates, a rookie head coach, could outcoach Tortorella in the series.

The Capitals have the scoring depth and secondary scoring depth with three point-per-game guys leading the way, but to me, the Rangers are the all-around deeper team (not necessarily when it comes to putting the puck in the net) and with Henrik Lundqvist as the backbone I believe they are the better team. However, I live in New York, so of course I’m going to believe this.

The Rangers enter the series after a 10-3-1 April and the Capitals come in even better after an 11-1-1 April. Outside of Pittsburgh, who no one might stop, we have the league’s two hottest teams meeting in the postseason for the fourth time in five years. I’d like to think this Rangers team is better than the team that won the series in seven games a year ago and much better than the teams that lost in five games and blew a 3-1 series lead three and four years ago. But the Rangers are a lot like the New York Football Giants in that the second you start to feel confident about them they let you down in the most devastating way possible.

I’m going with the Rangers in five games, which I’m sure will get a sarcastic laugh out of you, and really given the information I have, might be a ridiculous pick. But eff it! Rangers in five.

Klein: Picking the Rangers in five is certainly … optimistic. I don’t doubt that the Rangers have a very solid lineup from top to bottom, especially through the forward ranks (but if you’re not going to measure depth by production, I’m not certain what the best way is), but I think the injury to Marc Staal leaves them exploitable outside the top pairing of Dan Girardi and Ryan McDonough.

I personally have the Caps in six, but in order for that to come true they’re going to need to be the more disciplined team on the ice. This season was the first time in 16 years that the Capitals drew more penalties than they took and that’s only because Boston went to the box three times in the third period of the final game of the schedule. I should also point out that as great as Henrik Lundqvist is, as has been for a long time, Braden Holtby’s early measurables in career save percentage and goals against average are eerily similar.

If both goalies show up in the same way they did last year, I wouldn’t be surprised to be chewing my nails down to nubs during another Game 7.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 22, 2013

The Canadiens Own the Recent Rangers

The Rangers’ second meeting this week with the first-place Canadiens called for an email exchange with Andrew Berkshire of Eyes on the Prize.

The Rangers lost another game in which they led on Thursday night in Ottawa. Now their two-game road trip north of the border stops in Montreal on Saturday night for their second meeting with the first-place Canadiens this week.

Andrew Berkshire of Eyes on the Prize joined me for an email exchange to talk about why no one is giving the Canadiens the credit they deserve, why they are a bad matchup for the Rangers and what it’s like to have Brandon Prust on the Habs.

Keefe: John Tortorella called the Canadiens a “bad team” (which I ripped him for) after their win over the Rangers on Tuesday night. Henrik Lundqvist called the Canadiens “boring” despite their 3-1 win and now first-place spot in the Eastern Conference. No one seems to want to give the Habs credit for their strong start and five-game winning streak before their shootout loss on Thursday, but we are now one-third of the way through this shortened NHL season and while 17 games might not be a strong enough sample size in other years, it certainly is this year.

Why isn’t anyone giving credit to the Canadiens for their 11-4-2 start? They just won five games in seven days and beat the Hurricanes in Montreal and the Rangers in New York in less than 24 hours. They have outscored their opponents 18-9 over the last six games and outside of their loss to the Senators on Jan. 30 and their loss to the Maple Leads on Feb. 9, they have either won every other game or lost by one goal. The Canadiens might not have the type of stars other teams around the league do or an exciting and flashy style of play and maybe they are “boring,” but the Devils proved that “boring” can lead to championships in the NHL.

I’m buying into the Canadiens, but why isn’t everyone else?

Berkshire: As far as Torts goes, he’s always bitter after a loss it seems. His grumpy demeanor is funny from the outside at times, but it also wears thin. The Canadiens team he saw was playing its third game in four nights, all against teams that are fighting to get into the playoff picture. I don’t think the Canadiens were particularly great that night, but calling them a bad team is just Torts blowing hot air.

As for Henrik, I believe he also called them a smart team, which gives it a little context. The Canadiens played a boring brand of hockey against the Rangers on Tuesday, there is no denying that, but they were dog-tired and it ended up working.

I think the main reason no one wants to believe that the Canadiens are a good team is that, especially among the mainstream press, narratives are hard to shake. Under Jacques Martin the Canadiens were labeled a bad team, even though they were actually a good team. When they fell apart last year, many people felt like they’d been given justification for their former misgivings. And these are Habs fans! There are a lot of people who would rather be right than see their team win, and I think that was largely the case there.

As far as national media goes, the Canadiens were so bad last year for two thirds of the year that it was hard to believe they could possibly recover so quickly. At Eyes on the Prize, we go over a lot of data every day and we figured that a quick turnaround was more than possible, in fact it was highly likely. You can only be so bad when you have Carey Price, P.K. Subban and Andrei Markov heading up your back end. But it’s hard for a lot of people to move away from their opinions. The Habs were bad last year, so surely they would be bad again.

All this said, the Canadiens have still been one of the luckiest teams in the league, with high shooting percentages for several players that aren’t really sustainable. They’re going to lose more often in the next few weeks than they have so far this year, but they’re a playoff team in my opinion, maybe a Top 4 team in the East.

Keefe: I’m a Yankee fan, so I understand people wanting to be right and have their opinions be validated rather than having their team win.

It seems like there’s something different about the Rangers when they play the Canadiens. Actually I know there is. No matter how well the Rangers have played leading into the game or for how long they have been playing well, they always seem to either give an awful effort against or look like a completely different team when they face the Habs.

The Canadiens have won 11 of the last 17 meetings with the Rangers dating back to the beginning of the 2008-09 season. (I started counting with the 2008-09 season because the 2007-08 season featured the Rangers’ epic embarrassment on Feb. 19, 2008 when they blew a 5-0 lead in Montreal with 34:57 left in the game. I’m sure you remember that game well.) After Saturday’s game, the Rangers and Canadiens will only meet one other time this season (unless they meet in the playoffs) on March 30.

Why do you think the Rangers seem to never have their best game or anything that closely resembles their normal game when they play the Canadiens even though the names on the rosters change?

Berkshire: It’s an interesting question. I believe heading into that 5-0 comeback game the Rangers had dominated the Habs for a couple straight years, but I could be wrong.

I think part of it could be psychological. That game between the Rangers and Habs in 2008 was a turning point in that season for Montreal, and they blitzed through the rest of the season to finish first in the conference. One guy who always seems to be ordinary against the Habs is Lundqvist and we all know that he’s anything but ordinary. It’s possible that he’s still annoyed with that game a few years later. Something I’ve noticed with Lundqvist is that if you put a few past him, he stops fighting to make saves, and gets visibly frustrated.

Other than perhaps some latent mental frustration lasting from that game, I don’t really think there’s a logical explanation. The Rangers are a strong team, especially defensively that they shouldn’t be too far below .500 against the Habs.

It reminds me a little of the Habs and Leafs. The Leafs have been a terrible team by pretty much any measure for the last five or so years, while the Canadiens have been OK to strong over that time, yet they split the games down the middle. Something about the way the two teams match up that isn’t readily apparent causes results that shouldn’t happen.

Keefe: Brian Gionta has been one of my favorite players in the league since he debuted during the 2001-02 season even though his career has been spent with New Jersey and Montreal. I had the chance to watch him in college at Boston College and admired his scoring ability and his style of play despite being 5-foot-7, which he’s listed at, but appears way, way smaller.

Scott Gomez was also a personal favorite of mine after his Calder Trophy campaign in 1999-2000 despite playing for New Jersey and I was ecstatic when the Rangers signed him before the 2007-08 season. I was even more ecstatic when they were able to trade him to the Canadiens before the 2009-10 season.

The two of them formed the EGG line in New Jersey with Patrik Elias before teaming up in Montreal, but now their careers have gone separate ways with Gionta being the captain of the Canadiens and Gomez being told to go home for the year before ending up with the Sharks.

How much do you enjoy getting to watch Gionta play for your Canadiens and how did you feel about Gomez’s time and unusual departure?

Berkshire: I’m one of the few Canadiens fans who doesn’t harbor any ill will against Scott Gomez. It’s not his fault that Glen Sather signed him to an insane contract and it’s not his fault that Bob Gainey gave up Ryan McDonagh and Chris Higgins for him (two players that are younger and better than he is).

Gomez had the misfortune of being in Montreal when his career plateaued and he began to decline into old age and he was eviscerated for it. That said, he did have one very good year in 2009-10, and probably could have had a second one in 2010-11 if the Pacioretty-Gomez-Gionta line was a thing from the start of the season to the end.

I enjoyed watching Gomez’s transition game and neutral-zone play, which is still a strong skill set of his, but the rest got to be pretty mind-numbing by last year. I was glad to see him go, although it was still surprising. I think in the end, the buyout is good for both the Canadiens and Scott Gomez, who no longer has to worry about being labeled overpaid.

Gionta on the other hand, has been excellent for the Habs. He’s also at the age where his scoring has taken a slight dip every year, from a near 40-goal pace in his first year, to near 30, to an injury plagued year and now he’s likely a 25-goals-per-82-games kind of player.

He’s still solid defensively and plays a strong possession game against top competition though, and he rarely takes a shift off. Watching Gionta go in on the forecheck against Zdeno Chara and winning the puck battle tells you all you need to know about the Habs captain.

Keefe: Brandon Prust became an important part of the Rangers after being traded to New York in the Olli Jokinen deal three years ago. His grinder style of play and his willingness to fight anyone at anytime made him a blue-collar player and fan favorite in the city. My friend Dave went so far as to buy a Prust jersey last season, which I strongly advised him not to do.

So far this season Prust has already has two goals and five points after having just five goals and 17 points in all 82 games last year. He has a plus-7 rating, leads the league in penalty minutes with 76 (on pace to break his career high even in a shortened season) and is second in the league with six fighting majors. At four years and $10 million it seemed like the Habs overpaid for Prust in the summer, but he is giving them everything he gave the Rangers in two-plus seasons and more. Right now the Rangers could use Prust, but instead he’s helping your team try to achieve the 1-seed this season.

Berkshire: I really like Brandon Prust. I think his contract is a little too much money for a little bit too long, but that’s what happens with unrestricted free agents who have a unique skill set.

He’s already a fan favorite here, which has led to fans and media completely overblowing his value to the point where our local sports radio station asserted that he’s been the second most important player on the team this year. That’s pretty crazy and I wrote about what his real value is to the team on Wednesday.

I think he’s an above average fourth liner who can play on the third line if necessary, something the Canadiens have four of now along with Travis Moen, Colby Armstrong and Ryan White. He’s also been lights-out on the penalty kill, which is a welcome surprise since he was only middling by the numbers on the Rangers.

Is he going to be worth his contract by the last year of it? I don’t know, but for now I really like what he brings to the team.

Keefe: When the two teams met on Tuesday night, it was ugly. It was the second-worst game of the year for the Rangers after their 3-0 home loss to the Penguins on Jan. 31.

On Thursday night the Rangers blew a third-period lead to the Senators, and lost in a shootout, to drop their second straight game in which they led and it was their third loss in a row in which they scored the first goal. The Canadiens also lost on Thursday, but it was the first in six games as they blew a two-goal lead to the Islanders and lost in a shootout.

Saturday night will be the second-to-last meeting of the season between the Rangers and Canadiens (the last one is March 30) and hopefully we see a better all-around game than we saw on Tuesday. But in the bigger picture, what do you see for the Rangers and Canadiens over the remaining two-thirds of the season?

Berkshire: I think what we’ll see on Saturday is a much more entertaining game than what we saw on Tuesday. The Canadiens were extremely disappointed with how the game ended against the Islanders with Max Pacioretty being particularly fired up. The Canadiens are also a much stronger home team than they are on the road and won’t be coming off of three games in four nights.

Similarly, I think the Rangers are going to be a lot better as well. It’s possible that Rick Nash will be back in the lineup and that’s a big boost on its own, but I also think they have something to prove after the last game. I think we’ll see a high tempo game.

As for how the season will go, I think the Habs will be taking a step down sooner or later, because they’re not as good as their record. They should challenge the Bruins for the division title, but I’m not sure that they’re there yet. They’re a playoff team though, and a pretty good one.

The Rangers don’t seem to be the team they were last year. They’re still fantastic defensively, but they lost quite a bit of depth when the traded for Rick Nash, and they seem to miss Brandon Prust on the fourth line. They’re still a playoff team in my mind. I don’t think they’re as good as the Penguins over an 82-game season, but over this 48-game one, they could begin a hot streak that propels them up the standings to a division title.