This is it. The last Rangers-Islanders game ever at Nassau Coliseum. Well, that is unless we get a Rangers-Islanders playoff series this spring. But for now, this is the last time we will see the two rivals play on Long Island before the Islanders move at the end of the season.

With the Rangers and Islanders battling for first place in the Met and meeting for the fifth and final time this season, I did an email exchange with Dominik Jansky of Lighthouse Hockey to talk about the rivalry, what it’s like to have the Islanders relevant again, if Islanders fans want to see the Rangers in the playoffs and the sentimentality of the closing of the Nassau Coliseum.

Keefe: To anyone I know who is a real Islanders fan and didn’t just come out of the woodwork to rejoin rooting for a good team this season, I have compared being an Islanders fan to being a fan of a band that plays at bars and clubs and then all of a sudden they are playing arenas and stadiums and liking them is the cool thing to do. It seems like every hockey fan not already rooting for the Rangers is on the “I hope the Islanders win if my team doesn’t” bandwagon this season. And while I’m happy to have the New York hockey rivalry back, I’m not rooting for the Islanders if the Rangers are eliminated.

But what’s it like to have the Islanders back as a Cup contender after two decades of mediocre and bad hockey? Does it feel good to have attention on the Islanders once again?

Jansky: Of course it’s fantastic and long overdue to have the Islanders as contenders again. There is something poetic about it coinciding with the final season of the Coliseum, too, and to have the reassurance that they will hit the ground running in Brooklyn.

The “out of the woodwork” thing hasn’t been too much of an issue. One thing you find with a team that was so historically dominant during a certain era is there are a lot of fans who were kids or teenagers then who are absolutely loving the chance to relive even a taste of that success through the current team with their offspring.

Keefe: Two years ago when the Islanders nearly pulled off the upset of the Penguins in the first round of the playoffs before losing in six games, it was a glimpse into the future of the Islanders. Then injuries derailed last season and now we’re finally getting to see what took so long to build on Long Island.

Two years ago, you got the first playoff appearance since 2006-07, but the team still hasn’t won a playoff series since 1992-93 with six first-round exits since then.

What would you consider to be a successful season for the Islanders this season? Is it winning a series? Winning two? Reaching the Eastern Conference finals? Or are expectations even higher than that after their success in the regular season?

Jansky: Well, it’s already been a success based on the first three-quarters. Though it’s common for fans to write off the regular season, the fact is it consumes most of the season and, in some ways, is a bigger test than two months of playoffs.

Certainly winning a series would be nice, in terms of wiping that “not since 1992-93” factoid off the narrative, but they should do much more than that. They have as good a chance as any team in the East of becoming this year’s version of the sacrificial lamb offered at the altar of the West. However it plays out, they need to send the Coliseum off in style.

Keefe: Jaroslav Halak has been a major upgrade over Islanders goalies in recent years and will give them a better chance to win in the playoffs than they have had in some time. I have never been the biggest Halak fan and have never been worried when the Rangers have played them even though he has done a nice job against them this season outside of the Feb. 16 game.

Do you believe in Halak and are you worried about him for the playoffs?

Jansky: Halak has had his tougher moments, but his strength is in his steady calm amid the storm. He shakes off bad goals, he shakes off good goals, his movements are predictable and reassuring for the defense.

Considering Halak’s largest playoff sample was the year he carried the Habs over better opponents, I’m not worried about any of the traditional playoff narratives in his case.

Keefe: It’s the end of a chapter in the storied rivalry as Tuesday night will be the last time the Rangers and Islanders ever play at the Nassau Coliseum. Well, unless we get a playoff series between the two teams.

For a while I was against the Rangers and Islanders meeting in the playoffs, and it wasn’t because the Islanders beat up on the Rangers in their first three meetings this year. I said I didn’t want a Rangers-Islanders playoff series because from a Rangers fan standpoint, nothing good can come from it. If the Rangers win, they’re the Rangers and they’re supposed to win. And if the Islanders win, it’s basically the worst thing imaginable. It’s the same feeling I have about Yankees-Red Sox playoff series. If the Yankees win, they’re the Yankees and they’re supposed to win. And if they lose, well, it’s the worst thing imaginable. The aftermath of a series loss far outweighs the satisfaction of a series win, unless that series win eventually leads to a championship.

There’s nothing for the Rangers and Rangers fans to gain by playing the Islanders in the playoffs. Sure, it would be great for New York hockey and for the mainstream media around here to pretend like they care about hockey and it would be good fuel to rekindling the fire of a once-strong rivalry. But if the Rangers don’t win, it’s a disaster.

But after the last game between the teams on Feb. 16, which should be used a commercial for the NHL, I’m all for the teams meeting in April or May. Give me more Rangers-Islanders this season. Don’t make Tuesday’s game at the Coliseum the last between them.

Are you for or against a playoff series between them?

Jansky: I think what you’re describing is the fear that accompanies any rivalry: the bounty is incomparably sweet if your team prevails, but on some level you’d rather not risk the encounter if the flip-side is humiliation at the hands of your rivals and friends on the other side.

It’s not so much that the Rangers are “supposed” to win any more than they were “supposed” to beat the Capitals or Flyers or Penguins in years past, it’s that they haven’t faced that test in ages because the Isles haven’t been good enough to force them to.

I’d love for it to happen because of the great theater, even though it would be of the potentially torturous variety. Ultimately I know that, just like with the Penguins in 2013, even if it ends in a loss, history still favors the Islanders unparalleled accomplishments.

Keefe: With Tuesday’s game being the last Rangers-Islanders game at the Coliseum for now, has the sentimentality of the Coliseum closing start to set in? The Islanders only have nine home regular-season games left and then they’re only guaranteed two home playoff games as of now. So we’re looking at the real possibility of only nine more hockey games on Long Island.

Has it hit you yet that this is the end? What are your feelings on the move to Brooklyn?

Jansky: There was high sentimentality about the Coliseum in the preseason and opening months, but I feel like it’s taken somewhat of a backseat to marveling at just how good and consistent the Islanders have been this season. They were expected to improve and make the playoffs, maybe even contend for home ice in the first round. But to be in the division title conversation all season long, to avoid prolonged bad spells to this point, that has surprised even the biggest optimists and somewhat distracted from the Coliseum story. Now that we are in the stretch run, it is definitely on the mind though.

As for Brooklyn, it’s clear the political situation was too infested with incompetence to allow the Islanders to stay in Nassau, and Charles Wang certainly served his time trying to find a way. So with that ship sailed, I’m looking forward to the advantages Brooklyn will provide. It will be different, but also intriguing. As any fan who has watched both 19 playoff series victories in a row and a series drought of over 20 years knows, conditions change, nothing in sports last forever.

For a while now when the Rangers and Bruins play, we usually get a 1-0 or 2-1 games featuring Henrik Lundqvist and Tuukka Rask. But thanks to an odd Alain Vigneault lineup decision and an unfortunate injury, Lundqvist hasn’t played the Bruins either time this year and instead we’ve seen Cam Talbot. But Talbot did something on Wednesday night at MSG against that no Rangers goalie aside from Lundqvist has done since Kevin Weekes on April 8, 2006: beat the Bruins.

Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers and was also my freshman year of college roommate, joined me for an email exchange to talk about the Rangers’ win over the Bruins, what changes both teams could make at the trade deadline and Rick Nash’s incredible season.

Keefe: I can’t believe Pete Carroll did what he did and I can’t believe there was a parade down Boylston and Tremont Street right past where we watched one 10 years ago to celebrate a Patriots Super Bowl win. Ten years ago! I’m going to go cry now.

If you’re not still drunk from Sunday night or if you’re not still hungover from then, maybe you watched the Rangers-Bruins game last night? The Rangers won 3-2 and it was the first time they beat the Bruins since Game 4 of the 2012-13 Eastern Conference semifinals (May 23, 2013) and the first time they beat them in the regular season since Feb. 12, 2013. And they did it without Henrik Lundqvist.

I’m sure you probably could care less about what happened on Wednesday night at MSG since a regular-season hockey game in the beginning of February isn’t as meaningful as the ecstasy that comes with winning the Super Bowl, but I know a little part of you isn’t happy about the loss.

Miccoli: Going from watching the Super Bowl to the Bruins vs Rangers game on Wednesday was like going from riding a roller coaster that stops running at the last second (heh) to a merry-go-round. Total snoozefest and remotely stressfree. Did you know that the last time the Rangers beat the Bruins in regulation was on March 4, 2012? That’s almost three years ago!

So as you can imagine I was thinking, much like the Bruins apparently, that this would be a bit of an easy game. The Bruins had only one regulation loss in their last 14 games and would be playing a team they had dominated recently without their best player in net. See? Easy.

It wasn’t, as I’m sure you saw. The Rangers speed was too much for the Bruins to handle. You mentioned me still being hungover from Sunday night – no way. The Bruins sure as hell looked it, though. And while you’re right that it’s just a Wednesday night hockey game at Madison Square Garden in February, it’s still a big deal to the Bruins who are now the second wild card team, yet only seven points out of first place in the Eastern Conference. This is a weird season.

Keefe: Being the second wild card sounds bad, but unlike MLB where it is bad, it doesn’t matter in the NHL since home-ice advantage barely exists anymore. I remember going on a tour of the Boston Garden before it closed and there was beat-up wooden planks, which served as the walkway from the visitors’ locker room to the ice. I’m surprised players didn’t elect to walk in their socks to the bench and then put their skates on there. But now? Every rink pretty much looks and sounds the same and aside from oldies like Joe Louis and Nassau Coliseum, which are both on their last legs, they all feel the same. We need more small visitors’ locker room. We need to take away the glass behind the benches the way it used to be in the Montreal Forum. We need to teams to stop being so accommodating toward their opponent.

The Eastern Conference playoff picture is pretty much set. The eight teams in right now are going to be there in two months, barring a wild run from the Panthers and a disastrous collapse from one of the other eight. The only team the Panthers really have in their sight right now with games played and points is the Bruins. Imagine the Bruins missing out on the playoffs a year after being the favorite in the Eastern Conference and two years removed from a Stanley Cup appearance? I think that would make you quickly forget about Pete Carroll handing Bill Belichick the Lombardi Trophy.

Miccoli: I’ll take it a step further: there is still chicken wire, rather than plexiglass, surrounding the ice at one of the old rinks I used to play hockey at in Rhode Island. Forget walking on planks, good luck ever play a road game there.

The Bruins will make the playoffs. In fact, the Bruins might not even be one of the wildcards and could make it in as one of the top three teams in the Atlantic Division. I think I may have mentioned this before, but the one team that the Bruins should be concerned about is Montreal. If the Bruins were to somehow be the wildcard and play a team like the New York Islanders, they’d win in six games at the very most. Of course, it all depends on what happens at the trade deadline.

Due to their cap restrictions, the Bruins won’t make a big add, but as you saw last night, the defense has to improve. A second pairing of Dennis Seidenberg and Adam McQuaid is going to get lit up when facing other teams’ top two lines. Before, the need was more prevalent for a forward but as time goes on, it’s becoming obvious that a weakness of the Bruins’ is something that used to be a strength. Ironically enough, the Bruins could use a guy like Johnny Boychuk, but we don’t talk about that anymore.

Keefe: I would talk about Johnny Boychuk and take some shots at the Bruins trading away a key piece of their defense because of the genius of Peter Chiarelli putting the team in a cap debacle, but Boychuk is now an Islander, and we don’t talk about the Islanders here.

I never cared about the Islanders. They were just sort of there. They hadn’t been really relevant since the early- and mid-90s and have sucked for pretty much the last 20 years. Now that they have have been good for four-plus months, the last 20 years have been forgotten by their fans who have proclaimed the Islanders as the “Best Team in New York.” They have earned it to some degree by beating the Rangers handily in all three of their meetings this year and by leading the Metro for a good part of the year. But they will learn that title is made after Game 82.

The problem is if the Rangers and Islanders meet in the playoffs, the Rangers are effed At least I think they are. They aren’t a good matchup for the Islanders. The only thing working in my favor is that I hope the Islanders go 5-0 against the Rangers in the regular season and then they meet in the playoffs. As the 2007 Yankees taught me (when I begged for them to play the Indians in the 2007 ALDS rather than the Angels because they owned the Indians) is that the playoffs are different animal and eventually things will likely even out. The Yankees were done in four games, the Red Sox swept the Angels and then came back down 3-1 to the Indians and won the World Series. That Yankees team was the only team that had the Red Sox’ number and they never got to play them because of the Indians. The effing Indians.

You say that the Bruins could beat the Islanders and I don’t doubt it. I hope they play each other. Let the Rangers play the Penguins or the Capitals. I just don’t want to see the Islanders, Lightning or Canadiens early.

Who else do you fear besides Montreal?

Miccoli: To be fair, and even though I think they won’t beat the Bruins, I’m rooting for the New York Islanders to do well. I think they deserve to have a strong season after so many years of just being utterly awful. I think Boychuk is a big part of that culture change, though it was slowly getting better in year’s past as their core grew. But if I’m a Rangers fan, I’m nervous about the Islanders overtaking the title of best hockey team in New York, similar to how the Clippers finally eclipsed the Lakers in Los Angeles.

Aside from Montreal, I think the Tampa Bay Lightning pose the greatest threat to the Bruins. Of course, the two teams who would actually give the Bruins issues in the postseason are two teams they could likely face as early as the second round. Realignment is awesome! The other playoff teams in the Eastern Conference don’t present a problematic matchup to the Bruins as currently put together. What it is about the Lightning, anyway? I think the Rangers could beat the Canadiens again but even when I was talking with my old roommate about it, he said he feared Tampa most of all. Is it because of all of the old Ranger players on the Lightning roster? Callahan, Boyle, Stralman, am I forgetting any? In a seven game series, I’d pick Bruins over the Lightning just because old habits die hard, but I don’t know if I’d pick the Rangers.

Keefe: I don’t know why the Rangers can’t beat the Lightning or why they didn’t this season. They played all three games against each other in 18 days from Nov. 13 to Dec. 1 and the Rangers lost by a combined 15-7. But since their Dec. 1 loss to the Lightning and then their 3-2 loss to the Red Wings on Dec. 6 (the Rangers blew a 2-0 lead), the Rangers have gone 19-5-0. They have put themselves in a position that if they were to go 16-17-0 over their last 33 games, they would still finish with 96 points this season, which is what they finished with last season. Maybe it’s the Lightning that “lit” a fire in the Rangers? If they are to meet in the playoffs, I don’t think I could handle losing a playoff series to Callahan and Boyle. I would rather get swept by any other team in the first round than lose to them at any point.

Something I noticed about the Bruins on Wednesday night was how easy the Rangers were able to get in the offensive zone, and once in there, how easy it was for them to do whatever they wanted. Sure, they only won 3-2, but Rask made a few remarkable saves that kept the game from getting out of reach. Is it possible that the Bruins’ defense, their strength for the last five or six years, isn’t what it used to be? Am I right to not be scared of the Bruins the way I was in 2012-13 and 2013-14?

Miccoli: Absolutely. I think the Bruins are suffering from a bit of a transition this season. Zdeno Chara is no longer the most feared defenseman in the league. He’s still in the top 10, no question, but it’s very evident that he’s slowing down due to his age. Dougie Hamilton is in this weird phase where he’s in between being good and great at times. He’s the guy the Bruins will build their blue-line around going forward, and while Torey Krug is a strong puck-moving defenseman, there are still lapses in his game in his own end. And that’s it. Seidenberg isn’t a top guy anymore and neither is McQuaid (he never was, really). The Bruins have a top-pairing and then a bunch of No. 4 through No. 6 guys.

So I wouldn’t say you shouldn’t be scared of the Bruins anymore because who knows which team will show up for the rest of the season and in the playoffs. The team’s defense has been really vulnerable in their own end and that has caused opponents to really take advantage of them. You can look at the numbers and see that this isn’t the Bruins of recent years. Still, I think if they can add some depth come the trade deadline, things might seem more stable.

I asked my buddy what he thought the Rangers needed at the deadline and he said centers and talked about how bad New York was on the face-off. After watching the game last night, I’m pretty sure I could win a face-off against them. What do you think?

Keefe: The Rangers are miserable at face-offs and it’s clearly the weakest part of their game, and that’s obviously a big problem for any team, especially one expected to get back to the Stanley Cup Final and even win it. I say expected to win it since they lost it last year and now the only thing for them to do is win it. And the Rangers with expectations are a lot like the New York Football Giants with expectations and that’s not a good thing.

It seems weird that the trade deadline is nearly here because it feels like 15 minutes ago I was writing thousands upon thousands of words on why the Rangers need to trade Ryan Callahan. But here we are again with the deadline approaching. We are still a few days or so away from real rumors being generated and finding out exactly who is available, but the Rangers really do need to target someone who can win a face-off in a big spot, or at least give them a better chance at competing in the circle than what they have now. Who that is right now? I’m not sure, but I hope it’s someone.

I was wondering if you saw who scored the first Rangers goals last night? It was someone wearing number 61. He leads the league in goals with 33. I only ask you this because I remember you saying … let me find it … oh, yeah, this:

Here’s the thing with Nash: I think he’s one of the most overrated players in the NHL.

I didn’t just write that. You said that back in an email exchange on Jan. 23, 2013 at the start of the shortened season:

What do you have to say for yourself now? Rick and I would like an apology.

Miccoli: It took you five emails to address the NHL’s leading goal scorer. I’m almost surprised.

Yes, I did say that Rick Nash was overrated because, well … he was. Before the Rangers traded for him, he had only 30 goals and 29 assists in 2011-12 with Columbus. For comparison, Loui Eriksson had 26 goals and 45 assists in that same period of time. Loui Eriksson. Eriksson is a third-line player on the Bruins, but I digress. After that, he became a point per game player in the shortened 2013 season before putting up 39 points (!!!) in 65 games in the 2013-14 season. Lest we forget how invisible he was in the playoffs.

Now, he’s having a great season and should rightfully be in consideration for the Hart Trophy at the end of the year. My question is if he’ll be able to carry this over next season. If this habit continues, looks like he’s due for a bit of a drop off. Come back to me next year at this time when Nash should be the Rangers best player but isn’t.

Keefe: I was expecting a better apology than that. But I guess I will accept that for now. However, if Nash scores 50-plus goals this year with two other 40-goal seasons on his resume, I’m going to need a longer and more heart-felt apology to Ranger Rick and me.

There’s only one game left between these two teams now this season and it’s not until March 28. So I guess I will let you have your time to celebrate the Super Bowl win that was more of a Super Bowl gift and we can reconvene in seven weeks when hopefully the snow is gone, it’s 60 degrees in the Northeast and the Rangers and Bruins are playing for playoff seeding.

Miccoli: If Nash scores 50 goals, I’ll be sure to publish something about what a legend he is. At the very least, he’s more of a Hart candidate than that guy in Dallas who used to play for Boston whose name escapes me.

I’m happy the Rangers won last night. This third game really feels like an actual rubber match and that means something. Even though it took the Rangers three years to win in regulation against the Bruins, let’s hope Lundqvist is finally in net on March 28. The rosters might look different so if anything, this will be a better way to gauge just who the better team is this season. Plus, it’ll be a segue to the other Boston/New York games coming up this year.

Tuesday night was about as bad as a game could be for Rangers. Coming off 12 wins in 13 games, five straight wins and a California sweep, the Rangers never got going against the Islanders and got embarrassed at home in a 3-0 loss as Henrik Lundqvist watched the third period from the bench. But there’s no time for the Rangers to worry or reflect on what happened against their New York rival because the Capitals keep winning and the Rangers need to make the most of their games in hand on the rest of the Metropolitan.

For the first time in over 10 months, the Rangers will play the Bruins on Thursday night in Boston just as the Bruins are riding a five-game winning streak and playing their best hockey of the year. Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers and was also my freshman year of college roommate, joined me for an email exchange to talk about what has happened to the Bruins since their postseason loss to the Canadiens, the job security of Peter Chiarelli and Claude Julien, what’s happening in the Eastern Conference this season and the thinking of Boston sports fans.

Keefe: It’s the middle of January and the Rangers and Bruins are meeting for the first time this season. The NHL always gets things right! With the two teams finally meeting for the first time since March 2, 2014, it means we get to talk Rangers-Bruins.

I was ready for the demise of the Bruins on Jan. 4 after they had just dropped their third straight game in either overtime or the shootout and had lost four of their last five overall. Since then, the Bruins have won four straight and look to be back on track.

But even with the Bruins finding their game, this season hasn’t been as easy for them as the last four have been and judging by your highs and lows on Twitter, it’s getting to you.

Are you worried about the Bruins?

Miccoli: There are certain things that I look forward to in January: the annual AFC Championship game with the New England Patriots, the release of Dave Matthews Band’s summer tour dates and a pretty successful month for the Boston Bruins. Since Claude Julien became head coach, the Bruins have an average winning percentage of .591 in January. It’d be a much higher number too, if they didn’t go 3-9-2 in January of the 2009-10 season, but I’m still pretty sure that year never actually happened.

This season is no different. The Bruins don’t know what it’s like to play a game in 2015 and not pickup a point. They’re 4-0-2 in January, and as you said, have won four straight. It’s unfortunate that the Rangers are beginning to cool off just as they’re running into a Bruins team that is playing their best hockey of the season. The team is finally healthy and is beginning to play more like they won a high seed in the playoffs rather than a high draft pick in this year’s lottery. Plus, David Pastrnak is on fire. I wish you could be here in Boston and see the statue that’s being constructed of him right next to Bobby Orr’s. It’s going to be so big that it might knock down Halftime Pizza across the street. Nobody will miss it.

So to answer your question, no, I’m not worried about the Bruins. At least not right now.

Keefe: I have always thought the Bobby Orr statue was a letdown. The statue itself is great … it’s just small and in a terrible location. Here is arguably the greatest hockey player, the most talented human being to ever wear skates and he has this tiny statue on Causeway Street in the shadows of the ugly concrete disaster that is the TD Garden and across the street from what used to be T.G.I Friday’s where there is a Dunkin Donuts, a weird ticket store and some homeless people asking for change and doing drugs outside that sketchy liquor store. IT’S NUMBER FOUR, BOBBY ORR! SHOW THE MAN SOME RESPECT! Then again, I guess there really isn’t a place to put the statue around the Garden. What a weird, oddly-planned area. I wish they would put the T back above ground there, re-open Hooters where North Star or DJ’s or whatever bar is there now and give the area some character. Maybe the best spot for it would be down the street on Staniford Street outside of Domino’s where I still remember the number by heart from freshman year. 617-248-0100. I just typed that without googling it. Is that disgusting? Do you want to get a 5-5-5 with me and play MVP Baseball on PS2? Anyway, back to real life, where we aren’t 18 and our only responsibility is to go to class between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. and then take an elevator down eight floors to eat whatever we want.

I hope the Rangers aren’t cooling off. Sure, they were embarrassed by the Islanders on Tuesday night at home after embarrassing the state of California’s hockey teams, but they have still won 12 of 14 games and have played the least amount of games in the entire league and a few games in hand on all of the teams they are chasing. If they win those games in hand, they will be out of the miserable wild-card spot they are in now and back to not worrying about making the playoffs.

But when it comes to the Rangers, it’s always about worrying about making the playoffs up until the beginning of April. You have had the luxury of not worrying about that in the last few years, but the way the Atlantic is shaping up, you might have to worry about this year. Imagine, no playoffs for the Bruins? The people of Boston will have to watch baseball again!

Miccoli: Did we go to class? (Hi, Mom and Dad and Neil’s parents – we did go to class.)

Now that you’ve mentioned the 5-5-5 and ruined any semblance of an appetite that I’ll have for the rest of the day, I can tell you that the Bruins are going to make playoffs.

I mean, I think I will. If they don’t, say goodbye to Peter Chiarelli and a slew of other roster players. Since Charlie Jacobs was named CEO, replacing his father of course, he made it pretty clear that anything less than the postseason for the Bruins is a failure. It’s true, too. There’s no way that a team a season removed from winning the Presidents’ Trophy should be missing the playoffs. While they weren’t really replaced, Jarome Iginla, Johnny Boychuk and Shawn Thornton won’t sway a team’s trajectory that drastically.

Since Jacobs’ remarks, the Bruins have won four straight and have generally returned to form. Boston has been consistently inconsistent this season but for what it’s worth, I think that the team you’re seeing now is what you’ll see going forward.

The Rangers, on the other hand, won’t be a wild-card team either. You know how I feel about the Rangers, overrating them and everything, but I do agree that they’ve looked good and have proven that theory by beating good hockey clubs. The most recent 3-0 loss to the Islanders notwithstanding, the Rangers are a team who could very well surprise a lot of teams in the East. I’ve always thought Rick Nash was the most overrated player in the NHL, but this year he has been worth every cent for New York.

Keefe: Three years ago at this time, I spent all of January and February campaigning for the Rangers to trade for Rick Nash and I didn’t care what it took. Chris Kreider? Send him to Columbus. Brandon Dubinsky? I will pack his bags for him. Artem Anisimov? I will buy his plane ticket? Send them all and more and all the draft picks it will take. Unfortunately, the Rangers didn’t pull the trigger until five months later, in the middle of the summer, after they had been eliminated by the Devils in six games in the Eastern Conference finals.

My reasoning for trading for Nash was that the Rangers were one player short (a pure goal scorer short) of reaching and potentially winning the Cup and they couldn’t keep wasting years of Henrik Lundqvist’s prime by giving him a team around him that couldn’t win games without Lundqvist standing on his head. Once the lucky bounces stopped going the Rangers’ way, they were eliminated by the Devils because they didn’t have a player that could take over games with talent and not through bounces.

This year my Rick Nash campaign has finally be justified. He is on pace for a 53-goal season, which would be his personal best, and he hasn’t been mired by concussions (KNOCK ON ALL OF THE WOOD IN THE WORLD) the way he was the last two seasons. He has been the Rick Nash of old and the one I was willing to sacrifice the future of the team for before the 2011-12 trade deadline.

The thing about not having him in that 2011-12 season was that I knew that Rangers team could go far and didn’t know the next time they would get that far. Last season, of course, they went even farther and lost in the Final, and it got me thinking about how many things had to go their way to reach the Final and what would have needed to go their way to win it (not blowing two-goal leads and scoring in overtime in the future would be a good start). The Bruins have played in the Final in two of the last four seasons, but do you ever get nervous about the next time they could get back there?

Miccoli: Yes and no. I think that the East is always so wide open that one of maybe five teams every year have a fighting chance. I think it’s starting to turn a little bit this year with the way that the Islanders and Lightning have been playing, but for the most part, I consider the Bruins and Rangers right in that mix, too. I don’t know when the Bruins will get back to the Stanley Cup Final. I don’t think it’s going to be this season, but I think it probably should have been last season. In 2013-14, the Bruins went all-in and were eliminated prematurely by a team that they really never could beat, the Montreal Canadiens.

You see, I think there are certain teams that just know how to beat others. For the Bruins, it’s the Canadiens. Aside from circumstances where there are special variables (eg. Tim Thomas and Nathan Horton in 2011), one team will usually always get the better of the other. Even when the Canadiens weren’t very good a few years ago, they always gave the Bruins trouble. This pattern transcends hockey, too. The Patriots suck against the Jets. The Red Sox are generally mediocre against Yankees. Had the Bruins not faced the Canadiens last season, they would’ve won the Cup. I sincerely think that.

I think their inconsistencies and injuries this season really set them back. They probably weren’t going to run wild on the league again in 2014-15, but they were a sure bet to win the Atlantic Division and make a good run in the playoffs barring any run-ins with … you know. Because they’re a bit further back this far in, I don’t know if a Cup Final is likely. Regardless, the team is built around Tuukka Rask, Patrice Bergeron and Zdeno Chara for now. Within the next season or two, it’ll be Dougie Hamilton instead of Chara. Much like the Rangers were in 2011-12, the Bruins are missing that scoring touch. No one really knows who steps up. Don’t even get me going on the cap issues this team has that’s preventing them from tweaking the lineup.

Keefe: So I take it you aren’t a fan of the new playoff format instituted last season since it pretty much guarantees that the Bruins and Canadiens will meet a lot in the first round?

I think the craziest part about the Bruins still maintaining their success is their lack of scoring. Right now they have Brad Marchand with 12 goals and Patrice Bergeron with 10 as their leading scorers and then no one else in double digits. It’s not uncommon to have only a handful of guys in double digits at the halfway point of the season, but it’s uncommon to only have two when those two only have 22 goals combined and are the team’s best scorers.

It wasn’t too long ago that both Chiarelli and Julien were on the hot seat and close to being fired by the Bruins. And when you think about the fact that in the 2010-11 playoffs that the Bruins had to overcome a 2-0 hole to the Canadiens and then win a Game 7, win a Game 7 against the Lightning and then overcome a 2-0 hole to the Canucks and win another Game 7 all in the same postseason, those two were one lucky bounce from no longer being with the Bruins. At least Claude was.

Now it seems like they are both back on the hot seat. I’m not sure if it’s deserved, but they are. But people in Boston are insane and even more insane than people in New York. There were probably people calling for Julien’s job the season after winning the Cup, the way there were people writing and talking about the Red Sox’ roster for 2014 within a week of the team winning the most improbable championship in sports history. People are nuts and I think most of those people live in Boston.

Miccoli: The new playoff format is for the birds.

I don’t understand the Julien argument but you’re right, it’s definitely there. Boston is a “What have you done for me lately?” city and it’s pretty insufferable. Julien is a very good coach, albeit defensive-minded. I think there are certain quirks that bother some people but at the end of the day, he’s the right choice for the team going forward.

The Bruins aren’t able to take on much salary because they can’t move anyone due to so many players having NTC or NMC. And the one move they did make to start the season, trading Johnny Boychuk, ended up burning them pretty badly. With that in the back of his head, I think Chiarelli hesitant to make a move just for the sake of doing it. He’s been preaching patience for awhile and it has pissed off fans here because the team wasn’t winning.

They were right, too. The Bruins weren’t playing good hockey and seemed lifeless for a while, but that shouldn’t be all on Julien, it should be on the players. Like I said earlier, this might be the turning point but who knows. This team shouldn’t have regressed as much as they did so maybe this is Boston bouncing back. I get it and it’s reasonable to be upset over being a bubble team, but the fever pitch here really is at an all-time high.

Keefe: For someone who started this email exchange by saying they aren’t worried about the Bruins, you sound pretty worried about the Bruins. Well, maybe not worried, but you don’t seem confident.

About nine months ago, the Bruins were the best team in the Eastern Conferance and maybe the best tem in the entire league and the team to beat in the Eastern Conference playoffs. And now here we are with the general manager and head coach on the hot seat, one of their best defensemen playing for the Islanders because of salary-cap issues, their two leading scorers having 22 goals combined through 44 games and everyone in Boston freaking out about the team. I don’t think anyone saw this coming last spring when the Bruins when the Bruins had a 3-2 series lead over the Canadiens.

But like you also said, the Bruins shouldn’t have regressed as badly as they did through the first half of the season and maybe this is them turning it on. If not, at least you have the Patriots. My football season ended in October.

Miccoli: You’re right. Reading back and this is all over the place (much like the Bruins’ season – ha! Hilarious, Mike!).

I guess what I should say is that expectations have been adjusted for the team and since then, they’ve been fine. I’m trying to pinpoint the exact date when people started to realize that the Bruins might not be one of the NHL’s elite teams anymore. Could have been this offseason when Loui Eriksson was projected to be the first-line winger, or maybe when Chara and Krejci got hurt around the same time. I think the idea became more solidified when they traded away Boychuk for two second-round picks just before the season began.

The Bruins are still a good team, but until they start going on a tear, similar to what the Rangers did, they’re going to be questioned. I believe they’ll make the playoffs and maybe pull off an upset or two depending on who they face, but expectations should be altered. I think they’ll beat the Rangers on Thursday because they’re playing well and because Henrik Lundqvist and Derek Stepan aren’t on the ice. I can’t say much about the luck the Bruins have had with playing teams missing important players since they’ve on the opposite end of that for most of the season.

Are you even watching the game on Sunday? Have you converted to rooting for a team that’s actually good in consecutive years? Have you considered cutting the sleeves off of a hoodie?

Keefe: I will be watching the game on Sunday after thankfully missing the Patriots’ win over the Ravens, but I’m a Seahawks fan from here on out because they are the only team remaining that I feel confident about beating the Patriots.

When it comes to the Giants, well, let’s hope they are better than they were this year. And that goes for the Yankees too.

Let’s go Colts! And if they can’t do it … Let’s go Seahawks! or Let’s go Packers! The Super Bowl drought needs to reach 10 years.

Miccoli: The Make Way for Ducklings statues in the Public Garden are wearing “Do Your Job” cut-off Patriots hoodies for the game. I’ll never understand why you don’t enjoy adorable things. Come May, they might be wearing Bruins jerseys as the flowers bloom. That’s one of the best characteristics about this city – there’s always a team winning. I look forward to when I’m in my 40s and I have to tell my young children about these times to cheer them up when they’re rooting for teams who are so miserably bad.

Keefe: I look forward to that day because the run Boston has been on has lasted too long. Where are the 90s when you need them? Not only was it the best decade for music, TV and movies, but it was also dominated by the Yankees. I wish I could go back to that time. The 2000s haven’t been as fun.

Miccoli: The 90s were okay at best and vastly overrated much like the … ah, forget it. Good luck on Thursday night!