Rangers – Page 34 – Keefe To The City

Blogs • Rangers • Rangers Playoff Thoughts • Rangers Playoffs

May 28, 2014

Rangers-Canadiens Game 5 Thoughts: 0-for-1

The Rangers missed their first chance to win the Eastern Conference and put away the Canadiens and the blame will be placed on Henrik Lundqvist.

I couldn’t believe the Canadiens went on the power play 22 seconds into Game 5. I couldn’t believe they scored 1:26 into that power play. I couldn’t believe Henrik Lundqvist gave up the goal he did to Tomas Plekanic just 1:40 after the Rangers tied the game at 1. I couldn’t believe Lundqvist let Max Pacioretty beat him 3:44 into the second period and then let Rene Bourque turn around and find the back of the net 3:10 later. I couldn’t believe Lundqvist was pulled with 11:02 left in the second and I couldn’t believe he didn’t come back for the start of the third. I couldn’t believe Henrik Lundqvist didn’t show up for Game 5.

The Bell Centre has long been to Henrik Lundqvist what both Yankee Stadiums were to Pedro Martinez with the only thing missing from the raucous and embellishment-accepting Habs fans being the “Who’s Your Daddy?” chants to further rattle the King. But after Games 1 and 2 in Montreal, when Lundqvist gave up three goals combined, stopping 63 of 66 shots, (including 40 in Game 2), I thought he had finally overcome his Montreal letdowns. I thought he had silenced Habs fans the way he silenced all of his postseason critics when he put the Rangers on his back to overcome the 3-1 series deficit to the Penguins by winning Games 5 and 7 in Pittsburgh against the best offensive talent in the world and possibly the second-best offensive talent in the world. But maybe he didn’t and maybe I was wrong to think that because there was Lundqvist on Tuesday night in Montreal giving up goals that left Marc-Andre Fleury somewhere thinking, “Those aren’t that soft.”

I have never said anything negative about Lundqvist, at least not seriously. He’s in an elite class, in that sense, with Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera and post-Super Bowl XLII Eli Manning. When I tell anyone that, the first thing they say is that the other three have won, and I’m always quick to say, “They didn’t win by themselves,” and Lundqvist won’t ever win by himself either even as much as the anti-Lundqvist club wants to believe he should somehow help provide more offense to give the Rangers a better chance to win.

I fully believe Lundqvist has been as good as he could be or any goalie could ever be for the Rangers teams that have been constructed during his career since 2005-06. And I fully believe Lundqvist has been as good as he could be or any goalie could be in the eight postseasons the team has played in since 2005-06 (this one included). He has been the face of the franchise, the backbone of the organization and the sole reason for any success over the last nine seasons and with or without a Cup to this point doesn’t change the goalie he has been for the teams he has been dealt.

Lundqvist wasn’t himself in Game 5 and proved Eddie Olczyk’s theory wrong that the Rangers would never lose a playoff game in which they score four goals because of Henrik Lundqvist, and neither was the rest of the team. (Well, maybe Dan Girardi was himself because he was having himself a nice Sunday Skate while the Canadiens were hanging around in the slot as if they were playing “Rebound.”) But no 7-4 loss, no three-goal loss can be blamed on one player or the goalie, even if that goalie is the best in the world. But as will be the case in the aftermath of the Rangers’ first missed opportunity to win the Eastern Conference, Lundqvist will be the center of the Rangers’ disappointment and will continue to be so for any failure until at least until he wins the Cup. And if you’ve paid attention to what’s happened in Boston over the last couple years, he will likely continue to be the center of any disappointment even if he can erase a 20-year drought because that’s what happens when expectations are created.

There’s not much to say about a 7-4 loss in which the Rangers scored four goals in Montreal and overcame a three-goal deficit to tie the game at 4 other than that it was a missed opportunity. Fortunately, the Rangers put themselves in a position to have three opportunities to put the Canadiens away and to put a Stanley Cup Final series back in New York for the first time in 20 years.

Game 6 will be different. It has to be different. The Rangers can’t get back on a plane to Montreal with another Game 7 looming and the Bell Centre awaiting them full of Habs fans who have been waiting for the Cup a year longer than Rangers fans. And Henrik Lundqvist can’t show up at Madison Square Garden on Thursday night. King Henrik must show up.

May 20, 2014

Rangers-Canadiens Game 2 Thoughts: The Broadway Hat Belongs to Henrik Lundqvist

The Rangers won Game 2 of the Eastern Conference finals and it was all because of Henrik Lundqvist. It always is.

Seventeen seconds. That’s how long I was worried about the Rangers in Game 2 of the Eastern Conference finals and now that’s how long I have been worried about them in the first two games against the Canadiens.

After Max Pacioretty scored the game’s first goal after Mats Zuccarello lost the puck in his feet in front of Henrik Lundqvist the way Dan Girardi loses the puck frequently at the point on the power play, the Bell Centre erupted and thoughts of doubt started to creep in. “What if the Rangers fall into an offensive slump? What if they can’t score? What if Dustin Tokarski becomes the Canadiens’ version of Michael Leighton for the Flyers in the 2009-10 playoffs? What if the Canadiens win Game 2?” I started to worry that the Rangers wouldn’t be able to overcome allowing the the first goal in a playoff and a one-goal deficit because they have so many times before. But 17 seconds later, Ryan McDonagh reminded me of what I wrote after Game 1: these Rangers aren’t the same old Rangers.

The Bell Centre PA announcer hadn’t even finished announcing Pacioretty’s goal to a raucous crowd that forced me to turn the volume down on my TV before McDonagh interrupted Montreal’s party with a goal as a result of just throwing the puck near the net. And after turning my volume down as the Habs fans tried their best to get me a noise complaint from my landlord, I thought I had previously turned the volume all the way down to “0” or accidentally hit the mute button. The Bell Centre had gone silent.

I spent some time on Monday listening to Montreal sports radio to get a real sense of the mood and atmosphere in a hockey haven following the news that Carey Price, the man responsible for their series win over the Bruins, would miss the rest of the Eastern Conference finals. For New York Sports fans, the radio hosts and callers sounded like the equivalent of Yankees fans on Oct. 21, 2004 coupled with Mets fans on Oct. 1, 2007. The tone from the voices on the air sounded as if Montreal had lost the Canadiens due to relocation rather than losing their starting goalie due to an injury suffered from a breakaway.

As Canadiens fans started to wonder who would start Game 2 for them and try to save their season, Michel Therrien was busy blaming Price’s injury on the “reckless” Chris Kreider after calling his collision with Price “accidental” following Game 1. And according to Therrien, “This is not the first time Kreider’s going at goalies.”

To Therrien, the breakaway and collision in question has become about what Therrien thinks Kreider was thinking. And when you call a collision at the end of a breakaway “reckless,” you’re implying that Kreider was coming down the ice at at least 30 miles per hour with Alexei Emelin trying to pull him down with the intention of taking out Price rather than scoring a goal. And if you’re not implying that he knew the entire breakaway he wanted to go feet first into Price, then you’re implying that in the 0.000001 seconds after his shot didn’t go into the night, he thought and decided, “I didn’t score, so time to go feet first into the goalie and sacrifice my body and put my season at risk!” If you think both of those ideas are insane, then you think Michel Therrien is insane, and after blaming Price’s injury on Kreider, he clearly is.

So because Therrien put the blame for Price’s absence on Kreider, the Canadiens fans followed along, booing Kreider every time he touched the puck in Game 2. But every time Emelin (the Canadiens defensemen who let Kreider get past him for the now famous breakaway) touched the puck, there wasn’t any booing from the Canadiens fans. How is Emelin off the hook for Kreider’s breakaway? And why didn’t Therrien call his defensive play “reckless” when asked for his thoughts on the situation?

The Canadiens and their fans have long been known for their excuses, always looking to blame someone or something rather than themselves when things don’t go right for the franchise with the most championships in the league. Therrien blamed Kreider and the calls and breaks of the series and Canadiens fans can blame the loss of Price, a perfect built-in excuse for Montreal, if the team isn’t able to overcome a 2-0 series deficit and their season is ended by the Rangers. The latest excuse from the Canadiens is P.K. Subban calling Henrik Lundqvist “lucky,” which might be more ridiculous than Therrien implying Kreider’s breakaway collision was planned. If the Rangers win the Eastern Conference, it will be because of Henrik Lundqvist and there’s nothing that Michel Therrien, Carey Price or the Canadiens can do or could ever do about that.

Lundqvist has long been the best goalie in the NHL despite what his critics say or what his one Vezina Trophy suggests. He has spent his career on a bunch of average and below-average Rangers team that he made above average. But even knowing all this and watching him take over games and series like he did against the Penguins and has against the Canadiens, there are still those who would cite Lundqvist’s 19-25 playoff record entering the season as a reason for him being anything other than the “King.” But they don’t mention that in those 25 playoff losses, the Rangers scored a total of 36 goals or 1.44 goals per game. This postseason, the Rangers are 10-6, and in two of the six losses, they were shut out (Games 2 and 3 against Pittsburgh) and in Game 3 against Philadelphia they scored once, but I guess those losses are on Lundqvist too. Why didn’t he score any goals in those games?

Lundqvist has been the reason the Rangers have been in the playoffs in eight of his nine seasons, and he’s the reason the team came back against the Penguins, the reason they are up 2-0 on the Canadiens and the reason they are two wins from playing for the Cup for the first time in 20 years.

For outsiders, the opening minutes of Game 2 must have been magical to watch as Lundqvist kept the Canadiens off the board, but I have grown accustomed to those types of Lundqvist performances over the last nine seasons to the point that I expect them. I actually envy those watching Lundqvist regularly this postseason for the first time the way I envy someone who tells me they’re about to start watching Friday Night Lights or The Wire for the first time. And the opening minutes were just the beginning as Lundqvist went on to stop 40 of 41 shots and relentless pressure from a desperate Canadiens team playing in the hardest place for opponents to play.

The Rangers have now played 16 games this postseason and Lundqvist has allowed two goals or less in 12 of them. Since Game 5 in Pittsburgh, he has allowed six goals in five games and has stopped 162 of 168 shots (.964 SV%). The Rangers have been outshot in three of those fives games and Lundqvist has faced 26 more shots than the Rangers’ opposing goalies have, or basically one additional full game of shots against.

McDonagh was given the Broadway Hat after Game 2 for his goal that shut up the Bell Centre and for his assist that helped set up Martin St. Louis’ power-play goal that put the game out of reach. But the Broadway Hat really belongs to Henrik Lundqvist and it always has. He just lets his teammates borrow it.

Ten down, six to go.

May 18, 2014

Rangers-Canadiens Game 1 Thoughts: Not the Same Old Rangers

Rangers games aren’t supposed to go the way Game 1 went. The Rangers aren’t supposed to jump out to an early lead, build on that early lead, prevent a dreaded two-goal lead from slipping away

Rangers games aren’t supposed to go the way Game 1 went. The Rangers aren’t supposed to jump out to an early lead, build on that early lead, prevent a dreaded two-goal lead from slipping away and then put the game away with an entire period left to play. It’s not supposed to happen. That’s not Rangers hockey. Or at least it’s not what Rangers hockey has always been. But since Game 5 against the Penguins, Rangers hockey has changed. But here’s what would have happened if the pre-conference semis Game 5 Rangers had showed up for Saturday’s game:

The Rangers would have gotten up 2-0. Then after the Canadiens cut the lead to 2-1 (which they did), they would have scored the fourth goal of the game to tie the game at 2 with the Rangers blowing an early two-goal lead. After taking the Canadiens and their fans out of the game just 4:35 into Game 1, the Rangers would have given the Canadiens and the Bell Centre the energy and emotion they needed after exerting it all in the seven-game series with the Bruins. Then the Canadiens would have gone on to win Game 1 and the Rangers would have missed their most significant postseason opportunity in 20 years.

Game 1 was such a perfect start for the Rangers in this series that it felt weird watching it. After watching the Rangers struggle to score goals, defend leads and win games, I wasn’t prepared for a 7-2 win in Montreal. My mind and body didn’t know how to react to a dominant Rangers performance and I handled it the way someone with a ’92 Mercury Sable would feel test driving a new luxury car. “This feels great! The air conditioner turns on and pumps out cold air! All four windows go down! The clock on the dashboard isn’t stuck on 1:39 p.m. forever! The stations above 104.1 FM come in clear! I can’t believe people live like this!” For once, I knew what it was like to be a Blackhawks fan since 2009-10 or a 2013-14 regular-season Bruins fan. It felt good to win a game where you’re not asking Henrik Lundqvist to make a one-goal lead stand for 32 minutes or where you’re not wondering if the Rangers will produce an odd-man rush or get a shot off in the slot. The Rangers looked like a championship-caliber team on Saturday and have looked like one for four straight games now, starting with when their backs were against the wall in Pittsburgh for Game 5.

It was fitting that Martin St. Louis started the scoring for the Rangers after what he has been for this team and what he has meant to this team and their run since trailing 3-1 to the Penguins. And it was a perfect ending to the perfect game with Rick Nash finishing the scoring for the Rangers in what I hope was a sign of foreshadowing for what’s to come for the rest of the playoffs, given his history of scoring streaks and scoring goals in crazy bunches. But I almost don’t believe I watched Game 1 of the Eastern Conference finals because not even the most optimistic, Ryan Callahan- is-better-than-Martin St. Louis, Glen Sather-can-do-no-wrong, Adam Graves’-number-deserved-to-be-retired Rangers fan thought a win like that was possible. I’m not talking about a win against the Canadiens in Montreal in the Bell Centre in the Eastern Conference finals. I’m talking about a win like that against any team in any city in any arena at any time. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me it didn’t happen the same way I’m waiting for that same person (or any person) to tell me the 2004 ALCS didn’t happen.

But unlike the 2004 ALCS, the 2003 ALCS did happen and before the Eastern Conference finals started, I compared that series to this series in an email exchange with Mike Miccoli. The Canadiens-Bruins series was essentially the Canadiens’ Cup Final for the team and for the fans. After blowing a 2-0 series lead to the Bruins in the first round of their eventual Cup run in 2010-11 and after being swept in the first round of the 2008-09 playoffs, the Bruins had taken the upper hand in the longstanding battle and the Canadiens hadn’t been able to solve the Bruins since their rebuild and resurgence in 2008-09. The Canadiens last beat the Bruins in the playoffs in 2007-08, but as the 1-seed facing a weak 8-seed, the Canadiens needed seven games to solve those Bruins. Montreal needed to beat the Bruins this year, not only to advance to this year’s conference finals, but for redemption of what happened three years ago and to redeem themselves as the big brother in the game’s best rivalry. The Canadiens played their conference semifinals series against the Bruins the way the Yankees had played the 2004 ALCS. And once the Yankees’ won the American League they had nothing left in the tank to win another series, even if it was the World Series and even if they were facing the Marlins, who needed to come back against the Cubs to get there. The Canadiens are now playing the Marlins and the Rangers have become a different team since their come back against the Penguins.

It was 11 days ago that the Penguins beat the Rangers 4-2 at the Garden and left them facing a 3-1 deficit with the series heading back to Pittsburgh. The finality of the 2013- 14 Rangers season set in after that Game 4 loss and by the time Game 5 started I had been in the initial phase of coping with the end of the hockey season for 48 hours. I started to simplify what the Rangers needed to do the way Alain Vigneault likely did to his team, telling myself “There’s at least one game left to watch this season. But if they win tonight, there will be at least one more.” The playoffs is about extending the season and surviving and advancing until the point that there’s no place left to advance to. After Game 4 against the Penguins, it looked like the Rangers’ next game would be in October and almost two weeks ago, this position didn’t seem possible.

Nine down, seven to go.

May 16, 2014

The Key to the Canadiens

No one knows the Canadiens like Bruins fans, so I decided an email exchange with Mike Miccoli would be the best way to finding out how the Rangers can beat beat the Habs.

Every Rangers fan should have celebrated the Canadiens’ Game 7 win over the Bruins on Wednesday night because it meant the Rangers would face the Canadiens in the Eastern Conference finals and not the Bruins.

No one knows the Canadiens more than Bruins fans, who might be more concerned with the Habs than their own B’s. Because of this, and because the Rangers are playing the Bruins’ rival, I decided to email Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers, and ask him how the Rangers can beat the Canadiens.

Keefe: Usually when I email you, it’s about the Bruins because the Rangers are either playing them, about to play them or have just played them. Unfortunately (but really fortunately), the Rangers and Bruins won’t play again until at least October.

I’m emailing you today because the Rangers are playing the Canadiens and I don’t know anyone who knows the Canadiens better than you. I feel like you might even know them more than you know your Bruins. But before we get into how the Rangers can win the Eastern Conference for the first time in 20 years and since we were in third grade, how are you holding up after Game 7? (If you don’t respond to this email I’m going to assume you aren’t holding up well and call 9-1-1.)

Miccoli: Ahh, the NHL playoffs. Is that still going on? I wasn’t aware since the best team in the NHL decided to stop playing so early. I figured they just called the whole thing off. Guess not.

If we’re being honest, the Montreal Canadiens rewrote the script here. I really thought everyone was destined to see a Blackhawks/Bruins Cup Final rematch. In a really twisted way, part of me thinks that can still happen but I won’t get into the logistics of how right now. I’m glad it’s over–really, I am. The hockey was smeared by postgame comments and instead of hearing about the actual game, we had to put up with “respect,” “class,” and “squirting.” It got old fast, but don’t tell the Canadiens that! Friday morning, the day before Game 1 of the Rangers-Canadiens Eastern Conference finals and Montreal is still talking about the Bruins. Here’s where I think your Rangers can really capitalize. The Canadiens are a team so obsessed with certain aspects of the game that make zero difference in the actual end-result of a series. Oh, the opposing team doesn’t like you? That’s terrible! Whatever emotion the Canadiens had for the Bruins won’t be replicated against the Rangers.

How are you feeling about the series? Have you been ignoring the Rangers dreadful record playing in the Bell Centre?

Keefe: I don’t get the Boston-Montreal media battle, which has taken on a life of its own and has become to the media more important than the actual Boston-Montreal games. It seems as though media members in both of the cities want to be the center of attention rather than the players and results of the games and it’s unlike anything I have ever seen.  I also don’t get why the Montreal media is still talking about Boston and the Bruins series. Not only did it end two days ago, but the Canadiens are playing for a chance to play for the Cup starting tomorrow and I’m still seeing new stories on reactions to the “respect” and “class” you talked about and the life and times of Milan Lucic. When will it stop? Will it ever stop? Will there still be Bruins-related stories coming from the Montreal media after the Rangers series has started?

I’m actually feeling confident in this series. Sure, the Rangers and more importantly Henrik Lundqvist have been awful for a long, long time on the road in Montreal, but there’s just something about what transpired over the last three games against the Penguins and the Rangers not having to face the Canadiens that has me overly optimistic about this series. There’s a very real chance all that confidence could be erased by Monday night and the Rangers could be starting at a 2-0 series deficit heading to MSG, but for now … Wooooooo! Let’s go Rangers!

As I eluded to in my opening email, I wanted to ask you about how to beat the Canadiens even if the Bruins couldn’t do it. I thought if the Rangers faced the Bruins, they would be facing an enhanced version of themselves and would eventually lose, but with the Canadiens’ fast-paced tempo, I think the Rangers will be successful.

Now with realignment, the Bruins and Canadiens will likely face each other in the playoffs nearly every year, which should be good for your health and well-being. But because of this I’m sure you know the weaknesses and flaws of the team that will be preventing the Bruins from winning the Cup again for the foreseeable future.

You have seen a lot of both the Rangers and Canadiens. What do the Rangers need to do that the Bruins didn’t?

Miccoli: The Bruins and Canadiens are going to play each other every year and my favorite hockey rivalry is going to become terrible for my health. You’re absolutely right. That said, Bruins should be back next year. Hopefully. Maybe. God, I don’t even know.

Here’s what they couldn’t do against Montreal: figure out Carey Price. Beat Price, and you’ll win. It’s simple enough, right? Get the puck past the goaltender, score goals, win games. Price has been playing out of his mind this postseason and that’s a big problem for a team like the Rangers who can struggle on offense. The Canadiens coaxed the Bruins into playing dumb hockey, too. Maybe they dove a bit (they did), got away with one or two calls (also did this), but it worked because the Bruins played into all of their tricks. The Rangers have to play smart hockey and not get into anything extracurricular with the Canadiens because on top of everything else, their power play has been tremendous.

To me, it’s less about matchups for the Rangers and more about finding ways to generate offense. Yes, Pacioretty and Vanek are threats, but they were sort of invisible up until Games 6 and 7 against the Bruins when Zdeno Chara and some other Boston defenseman decided to fall asleep. Lundqvist is going to bail out the Rangers a lot this series and I wouldn’t expect anything less. As long as the Rangers are able to get shots off and find bodies to put in front of Price, they’ll score goals. Well aware, of course, of how difficult that’s been for New York.

It’s odd that you’re confident here. I don’t think I’ve predicted the Bruins to win a series since 2011.

Keefe: Well, I think I am confident to a degree. I always feel like the Ranges will let me down and lose anyway, so the confidence is somewhat of an act and really doesn’t matter. I think because the Bruins have become the class of the Eastern Conference, you have obtained the lack of confidence I get with the Yankees because they are supposed to win. And when your team is supposed to win, you start to envision the ways they will let you down and not win. The Rangers have yet to reach that level, so any postseason success at this point is almost like a bonus, especially since they are playing with house money now after coming back against the Penguins.

As for the Canadiens, I feel like the Bruins series was their Eastern Conference finals the way the 2003 ALCS felt like the Yankees’ World Series and then they didn’t show up against the Marlins in the actual World Series. Like we said, the focus in Montreal is still on what already happened in the conference semis and not what to expect in the conference finals, and it almost feels like the Canadiens and their fans cared only about eliminating the Bruins and maybe they will continue to live in the past as the postseason moves on.

It seems like any non-Canadiens, Islanders, Devils or Flyers will be rooting for the Rangers in this series because everyone (with the exception of the fans of those four teams) loves Henrik Lundqvist and the Rangers don’t really have any scumbags or dirty players on their team that the general public doesn’t like. I know you’re hopping on the Rangers bandwagon since you already ordered your Lundqvist jersey.

Miccoli: At the end of Game 7 in Boston, maybe a few seconds before the handshake line happened and Lucic threatened to kill a guy, a “Let’s go Rangers” chant broke out. Everyone in Boston, literally everyone, is a Rangers fan for the next couple of weeks. I know we talked about the Rangers not having any “love to boo” players on the roster unlike Chara, Marchand, and Lucic for the Bruins. I know it’s repetitive, but it’s another reason why I think that the Canadiens will have a tough time getting up for this series. They’re the better team but I don’t think the passion will be there. Their championship was beating the Bruins in Game 7 in Boston. They won.

Another thing I should mention about the Canadiens is their speed. They made the Bruins look like David Ortiz rounding third on a hot summer’s day at Fenway this series. The Rangers have a lot of skill, power, and speed up and down the lineup, where I wouldn’t say any of those three are necessarily a strength, but they’re pretty evenly distributed. The Bruins had skill and power with very little speed. The Canadiens amplified that.

I’m not sure everyone outside of the teams you mentioned are rooting for the Rangers though. In all honesty, I sincerely think that the majority of casual hockey fans that don’t see a Bruins or Penguins team in the ECF may not even watch. This ECF actually reminds me a lot of the Rangers-Devils one from a few years ago. Yeah, it’s good rivalry but would I watch if I didn’t love hockey? No. I wouldn’t.

Keefe: Well, after hearing everything you had to say, I’m sticking with my prediction f Rangers in 7 since that’s the only way the Rangers know how to win a series. That’s not a joke. Here are the Rangers’ last 11 playoff series:

Pittsburgh – Won in 7
Philadelphia – Win in 7
Boston – Lost in 5
Washington – Won in 7
New Jersey – Lost in 6
Washington – Won in 7
Ottawa – Won in 7
Washington – Lost in 5
Washington – Lost in 7
Pittsburgh – Lost in 5
New Jersey – Won in 5

The Rangers haven’t won a playoff series in less than seven games since 2007-08 when they beat the Devils in five in the first round. I’m not sure what’s worse when it comes to that or the fact that they haven’t won a playoff game when leading in a series since the first round against Washington in 2008-09 (a series in which they blew a 3-1 series lead in).

I want to watch meaningful hockey in June because the last time the Rangers played in June I had just learned how to write cursive and would spend Fridays having my third-grade teacher Mrs. Hunt read us Roald Dahl books and hand out Starbursts.

Welcome aboard the Rangers’ bandwagon. Let’s hope this train has eight more wins on it.

Miccoli: Let’s be clear here, I’m rooting for the Rangers only because I’m a Boston resident and they happen to be playing Montreal after eliminating the Bruins. Also, Henrik. I think they win in 7, too … only because I want to see you and my roommate, also a big Rangers fan, sweat out seven games against Montreal. Once that happens, go Blackhawks! Go Ducks! Go Kings! Go any other team not in the East.

I will say this, though–this time of year is fantastic. As someone who has gotten to cover it and enjoy it twice in the last four years now, I can safely say there’s nothing better and that everyone should experience it just once. With that said, yes, I hope you get to experience a Cup Final again.

I just hope the Blackhawks (or Kings or whoever) wins it in six.

Blogs • Rangers • Rangers Playoffs

May 16, 2014

The Season’s Not Over for the Rangers

The Rangers are back in the Eastern Conference finals for the second time in three years despite The Hockey News’ Ken Campbell writing them off after Game 4 against the Penguins.

The Rangers weren’t supposed to come back against the Metropolitan-winning Penguins down 3-1 in the Eastern Conference semis. They weren’t supposed to go to Pittsburgh and dominate Game 5, take care of business at home in Game 6 and then let Henrik Lundqvist further prove why he is the best goaltender in the world in Game 7. The Rangers were supposed to lay down and serve as a red carpet for the Penguins to return to the Eastern Conference finals for the second consecutive year. At least that’s what The Hockey News’ Ken Campbell said.

Following the Rangers’ Game 4 loss to the Penguins, Campbell (the man who called U.S.-born hockey players “pampered, entitled rich kids“) wrote an 852-word “column” (I use this word loosely) titled “Season’s over for the Rangers, now it’s time to look to the future” and took the easy route out of having to analyze hockey by going with the lazy rhetoric of “a team down 3-1 can’t come back” and pouring dirt on a still-breathing Rangers team and season. I had always been under the impression that it takes four wins to win a seven-game series, but Campbell informed me that you actually only need three. I could have used Campbell during the 2004 ALCS.

On Friday, the Penguins fired general manager Ray Shero and head coach Dan Bylsma could be next after failing to get out of the second round and failing to reach the Stanley Cup Final since winning it in 2008-09. On Saturday, the Rangers will play Game 1 of the Eastern Conference finals in Montreal while the Penguins will actively be looking to rebuild their front office in what will be the fourth day of their offseason. So let’s look back at Campbell’s “column” and his premature thoughts.

Well, the New York Rangers have allowed the star players of the Pittsburgh Penguins to finally find their way in this series. But the reality is that players such as Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin and Marc-Andre Fleury don’t even have to be that good. That’s because the bottom six forwards for the Penguins are outplaying the top six of the Rangers.

This story was written after Game 4. After Game 4, Fleury had produced back-to-back shutouts in Games 2 and 3, Malkin had two goals and three assists and Crosby had one goal and two assists. But over the final three games of the series, Fleury allowed 10 goals, Malkin had a goal and an assist and Crosby didn’t have a point as the Penguins scored three total goals in those games? It looks like the Penguins’ bottom six forwards were actually on the same level as the Penguins’ top six forwards.

And as long as Crosby can keep absorbing the hits to the head from Marc Staal and his merry band of headhunters, the Penguins have basically punched their ticket to the Eastern Conference final. Any team that is down 3-1 to a group as talented and explosive as the Penguins is always in serious trouble. A team down 3-1 whose best player is Mats Zuccarello is basically finished.

Marc Staal is a headhunter? That’s news to me. I would have classified him as someone who could afford to be more aggressive on the ice, but understand why he’s not due to his own history of head injuries and his career-threatening eye injury last season. But hey, let’s call Marc Staal a headhunter because ONE TIME he made high contact with Crosby. And who’s in Staal’s “merry band” of fellow headhunters and what makes them so merry? Does this band have a name? What instrument does Staal play? I could see him as a bass player.

I’m the biggest non-Penguins fan Sidney Crosby fan in the world. I defend and support The Kid against critics from every corner and he’s not the media and he’s not the Pittsburgh and Canadian honks (that’s the first time I ever used the word “honk” but Mike Hurley used it the other day and it stuck with me) that get visibly, emotionally and then literally distraught when something or someone hits him high. But if we’re going to call Marc Staal (the Marc Staal with 254 penalty minutes in 460 career games) a headhunter then what word do we use to classify someone like Matt Cooke? Well, let’s ask Campbell, since just last week he wrote a column titled “Has Matt Cooke really changed? Hell, yeah!”

Nothing against Zuccarello, but if he’s the best player for the Rangers, and he is, it means their highly-paid stars are not doing the job, which they’re not. Full marks to the Penguins for getting the job done, but this is a mediocre team they’re playing at the moment, one that would get ripped to shreds if it had to play in the Western Conference. Perhaps they’ll point to the fatigue factor – and if they’re still tired they should immediately fire their strength and conditioning coach – but this was a Ranger team that played with no urgency, no ability to handle the puck and no pushback. And that’s on the stars of this team, from Henrik Lundqvist out.

Mats Zuccarello was great during the regular season (19-40-59) and has continued that play in the playoffs (3-5-8), but he’s not the Rangers’ best player, not even close. But if you didn’t watch the Rangers during the regular season and just quickly browsed their team statistics page, then that is the conclusion you would come to.

What does “Full marks to the Penguins for getting the job done” mean? What job did they get done? Winning three games? Sending a series to seven games? Reaching the conference semifinals? Blowing a 3-1 series lead? Losing two home games with a chance to eliminate the Rangers?

Is that what I think it is? Is it? No, no, it can’t be. That can’t be a columnist from The Hockey News blaming Henrik Lundqvist for the Rangers trailing 3-1 in the series at one point. But it is. This is real life.

As I have said many times in many ways in many places, Henrik Lundqvist is the sole reason for any post-lockout success the Rangers have had. He is the reason they have reached the playoffs in eight of the nine seasons of his career and he’s the reason the Rangers came back to beat the Penguins in this series. And if the Rangers win the Eastern Conference or the Stanley Cup, it will be because of Henrik Lundqvist. He is the New York Rangers. But that didn’t stop Campbell from looking at the final scores of the first four games of the series to make a judgment. The box score doesn’t show goals that the Rangers scored against Lundqvist, but it does show that in two of the four games the Rangers were shut out. Where was Lundqvist in those two shutout losses? Why didn’t he provide more offense?

All in all, Game 4 was a pathetic effort from a team that fancies itself a contender in the Eastern Conference. But here’s the thing. The Rangers simply aren’t that good. They have a long way to go before becoming anything approximating a legitimate threat to win the Stanley Cup, or even come close. It’s probably safe to assume now that the first-round series between the Rangers and Philadelphia Flyers pitted the two worst teams in this year’s playoffs against one another.

If the Rangers “simply aren’t that good” then what are the Penguins? And what do we make of a team that reaches the conference finals? The Rangers have won two series this postseason, two Game 7s (and they have won their last five Game 7s) and they just won three straight against a team that boasts the best player in the world and possibly the second-best player in the world as well.

If the Rangers and Flyers were the two worst teams in the 16-team tournament then what do we make of the Penguins? What are the Lightning, who lasted four games in the playoffs? What about the Red Wings who lasted five? What about the Avalanche who went down as a 1-seed or the Blues who choked? What do you make of the 12 playoff teams that aren’t playing anymore?

And part of the problem for the Rangers is they remain their own worst enemy. Perhaps it would be different if the Rangers weren’t such a desired destination for players. Then it might not be tempted to try to grab every fading star player just because he happens to be available.

Think about it. Brad Richards came to the Rangers in 2011 on a nine-year deal. Other teams made more lucrative pitches to Richards, but he essentially had his heart set on playing for the Rangers. The moment Rick Nash waived his no trade clause with the Columbus Blue Jackets in 2013, it was basically assumed that the Rangers were going to get him. And when Martin St.-Louis sulked his way out of Tampa Bay prior to the trade deadline, it was to go to one team and one team only – the Rangers.

Thank you for writing how long Brad Richards’ contract is for and for giving us a behind-the-scenes look at the Nash trade and for telling us where St. Louis wanted to play.

Each of those acquisitions has been nothing short of a disaster so far. Nash, who had a dreadful game and an equally dreadful playoff for the Rangers, is now getting booed every time he touches the puck. In his own building. Nash has actually been contributing in his own end of the ice, but so does Anze Kopitar and it doesn’t stop him from creating offense. Since the 2006 Olympics, Nash has played a combined 45 Olympic and NHL playoff games and has four goals. Richards has scored some and had a pretty good first season in New York in both the regular season and the playoffs, but seems to be on the decline and is the point man on a power play that hasn’t scored in its past 38 opportunities. And St-Louis? Three goals in 30 regular season and playoff games since coming to the Rangers.

Unless Richards started putting together some Gretzky late-80s stat lines when he came to the Rangers, there’s no way he could ever justify his nine-year, $60 million deal. But who could? That’s what the going price was for him at the time of his free agency and like Campbell said, the Rangers weren’t the only team willing to dramatically overpay for him. Richards wanted to be a Ranger. And I’m not so sure he’s been a disaster. He’s played in 210 of a possible 212 regular-season games in three years and has 56 goals and 95 assists in those games. He is the Rangers’ leading scorer in these playoffs and was their leading scorer when they went to the conference finals two years ago. Aside from John Tortorella inexplicably scratching him during the playoffs last year (I wonder what John Tortorella was doing on Tuesday night?), Richards has been a solid Ranger. He hasn’t been the elite No. 1 center and playmaker the Rangers thought they were signing for nine years, but he hasn’t been as bad as everyone has made him out to be either.

I can’t make any excuses for Nash’s lack of postseason scoring, but to say he has been a disaster is irresponsible. Last season he had 21 goals and 21 assists in 44 games (over a full season that’s 39 goals and 39 assists), and the Rangers were winless in the four games he missed due to a concussion. He didn’t have a great postseason last year (1-4-5 in 12 games), but no one on the Rangers did after the first round. This season, Nash missed 17 games with another concussion suffered in the third game of the season and finished with 26 goals and 13 assists in 65 games. Now that’s not a strong ratio, but Nash has never been one for apples and unsurprisingly he has 336 goals and 292 assists in his career, which is a pretty drastic difference. But his 26 goals this season translate into 32.8 goals over a full season. I wanted Nash at the 2011-12 deadline and was willing to include Chris Kreider in a deal to get him and he ended up being the missing link the loss to the Devils. I was ecstatic when he became a Ranger and becaues of that, I have been an adamant supporter of him and have yet to give up on him after a couple bad postseasons. He’s still creating offensive chances and playing tremendous defense (yes, I’m aware he’s not paid to do those things), so it’s not like he isn’t helping the team win. But to think the Rangers have reached the conference finals without him scoring a goal is incredible, and if one of his patented streaks begins in the conference finals, the Rangers will be playing for the Cup.

What would Campbell’s solution have been for St. Louis? Keep Ryan Callahan, meet his ridiculous contract demands and destroy the Rangers’ future? Campbell probably would have liked that so he could churn out some more “columns” about how the Rangers have cap issues. Callahan was getting traded no matter what once he wouldn’t compromise with Glen Sather and Sather got the best return for him. If it wasn’t a trade for St. Louis, it would have been a trade with the Sharks or Ducks for much lesser packages. And I’m pretty sure it’s St. Louis and his personal life that changed the locker room over their last three games and changed the course of this season. But yeah, what a disaster Martin St. Louis has been!

Which brings us to the future of this team. Yes, it’s time to start looking to the future. The Rangers have $54.9 million committed to salaries for next season. They have only four regular defensemen – Ryan McDonagh , Staal, Dan Girardi and Kevin Klein – signed for next season. Up front, Derick Brassard and Chris Kreider are restricted free agents.

By saying that St. Louis has been a disaster, Campbell implied that trading for him was a bad move and that implies that the Rangers should have kept Ryan Callahan and that implies the Rangers should have signed Callahan and that would have ruined the Rangers’ chances of re-signing most of these players he just named. But like I said, that’s likely what Campbell wanted. You do know 850-word “columns” aren’t going to write themselves.

So, the question must be asked. On which of Nash or Richards should the Rangers use their remaining compliance buyout? Knowing them, probably not either, but it would rid the Rangers of one onerous contract. If it were Richards, the Rangers would be forced to pay $18 million in real money since $33 million of his $60 million deal has already been paid out, but would have a cap savings of $6.7 million for the next six seasons. If they were to buy out Nash, it would cost them $21.3 million in real dollars and would save them $7.8 million against the cap for each of the next four seasons.

If anyone gets bought out, it’s not Nash. But if the Rangers weren’t going to buy Richards out after last season’s playoff embarrassment and Richards’ letdown in play then why does everyone think it’s such a guarantee he is bought out after this year? Yes, the Rangers could use some cap relief and he would provide that, but he has become the captain of this team despite wearing just an “A” and though Ryan McDonagh will be the next captain of the Rangers, it’s obvious Richards has an important role with the team.

In our annual Future Watch issue, THN ranked the Rangers dead-last in terms of its group of prospects. Which means the Rangers are far closer to a tear-down than they are a Stanley Cup championship. Perhaps it’s time to begin that process now.

Campbell has since written an excuse for his “column” saying he isn’t apologizing because he is in the business of making predictions. So what does he do? Make another prediction of course. This time he says the Rangers will lose to the Canadiens.

And the Rangers might lose to the Canadiens, but right now the Rangers are four wins away from playing for a championship. They are eight wins away from winning their first championship in 20 years. It’s only been three days since the collapse of both the Penguins and Campbell’s prediction and they have already been torn down.