Rangers – Page 47 – Keefe To The City

Mar 27, 2013

New York Rangers in ‘The Newsroom’

A look the major storylines around the Rangers from the first with help from The Newsroom.

I love Jeff Daniels. I love HBO. I love the media industry. So when HBO aired trailers for a new series starring Jeff Daniels as a TV news anchor at a major media network, I figured it would fill the Sunday night void left by Curb Your Enthusiasm and Game of Thrones. I was wrong.

The first two episodes of The Newsroom were so hard to make it through that I fell asleep during the first episode (I re-watched it later) and actually stopped the second episode before its conclusion.

But after a few days wondering why Aaron Sorkin would write dialogue between characters in a way that no one speaks to each other in real life (if all the 20-somethings at ACN were that smart and that witty they wouldn’t be struggling to earn a living like Maggie suggests they are when she spends “her last $7” in one episode), I decided to go back to the second episode and give The Newsroom another chance. And by the end of that episode, the series picked up and after that it gained steam throughout the summer and left me feeling satisfied that I had stuck it out to make it to the season finale on Aug. 26.

This Rangers’ season has been stuck in the first half of Episode 2 of The Newsroom. But I think, well more like I’m hoping and praying, the 5-2 win over the Flyers on Tuesday night is the end of Episode 2 and the Rangers are about to go on their run and turn their season around the way Will McAvoy turned his series around.

The Rangers have one-third of their season left and the opportunity for “Midseason Awards” is no longer really possible. So instead let’s look at what’s happened over the first 32 games and two-thirds of the season that has the Rangers fighting for a playoff berth with some help from The Newsroom.

MacKenzie: “Where’s a power outage when you really need one?”

I thought the Rangers’ 3-0 loss to the Penguins on Jan. 31 at the Garden was the worst hockey-watching experience of my life. The Rangers trailed after 1:24 and never had a legitimate scoring opportunity in the game. They were shutout, 3-0, at home to one of the two teams (Boston being the other) they were “supposed” to compete with for the East crown this season. The game was an embarrassment on so many different levels that I didn’t think I would ever see such a poor home performance ever again. It only took seven weeks for that loss to be trumped.

Last Thursday was without a doubt the absolute worst hockey-watching experience of my life, and this time I don’t think there is a chance it will be topped. However, knowing this Rangers team, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the last six home games of the season one-punches last Thursday’s game for the title.

Not only did the Rangers lose to the last-place Panthers 3-1, despite outshooting the Panthers 45-24, but I had a female Rangers fan on my left who started a “BE AGGRESSIVE! B-E AGGRESSIVE!” chant with the Rangers on the power play (to be fair she was drinking the entire game) and a family of four on my right left led by the father who compared the team to the 1962 Mets and the mother who ripped apart Marian Gaborik and was actually upset when he scored with 3:48 left in the game.

If the Rangers blew a 4-0 lead in the final four minutes of Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final that would be a miserable time, but at least you would see something historic and at least there would be goals and action and excitement and not just boring, painful-to-watch hockey.

Bryan: “Is it important that you treat me like an a–hole?”

This one goes two ways.

First, it goes to Sam Rosen, who has been made into John Tortorella’s whipping boy this season for simply asking Tortorella about the games he coaches and the decisions he makes. I’m disappointed in Rosen for handling the situation gracefully and for talking with and forgiving Tortorella on the team plane for Tortorella’s frequent lashing out. Rosen should have gone over the top with Tortorella and asked real questions that the fans want answers to. If Rosen is going to take a beating for asking hockey-related questions that lack harmful intent, he might as well go all the way and ask sarcastic questions.

The second part of this goes to Brian Boyle and why it is important that I treat him this way, which it is.

Brian Boyle is 6-foot-7. He is two inches shorter than Zdeno Chara, who is the tallest player in NHL history. Have you ever seen anyone who wants to go after Chara on the ice? No, of course you haven’t because he is 6-foot-9 and plays like it. Have you ever seen someone with Brian Boyle? Of course you have because he plays like he’s trapped in Nathan Gerbe’s 5-foot-5 body and completely wastes the main reason he has made it this far in his hockey career (his size).

On Monday, Larry Brooks wrote in the New York Post that Brian Boyle has been on the ice for three Rangers goals this season. But on Tuesday he was on the ice for a Rangers goal, so now that number is four. FOUR! F-O-U-R! How is it possible that Boyle has played in 28 games this season and only has one goal and one assist and has been on the ice for four goals and is still dressing for games. Actually how is it possible that he has those numbers over that timeframe and is still on the team? If Jeff Halpern could get waived for a 0-1-1 line in 30 games and Stu Bickel could get waived for a 0-0-0 line in 16 games, how far away are we from Boyle being waived?

Charlie: “Have you read the New York Post?”
Will: “No. My eyes are connected to my brain.”

Bobby Holik wasn’t wearing number 10 for the Rangers on Thursday night.

Wade Redden wasn’t wearing number 10 for the Rangers on Thursday night.

Scott Gomez wasn’t wearing number 10 for the Rangers on Thursday night.

None of the big-name, free-agent busts of the past were wearing number 10 on Thursday night. Marian Gaborik was wearing number 10.

Marian Gaborik has played 251 games with the Rangers. He has 114 goals and 115 assists in those games. He has two 40-plus goal seasons with the Rangers (2009-10 and 2011-12). So why was everyone at MSG booing him on Thursday night? Why was my friend Jim texting me trade proposals for Gaborik from across the MSG ice? The mainstream media, that’s why.

There is this idea that the Rangers no longer need Gaborik, or that his play has been in a free fall since last spring because he has a 9-10-19 line in 32 games. No one mentions that he’s recovering from offseason shoulder surgery and that he battled his way through the playoffs with a torn labrum. No one mentions that Tortorella has used every possible line combination in just 32 games and the lack of chemistry between the team’s best forwards is clearly evident. No one mentions that Gaborik has played left wing his entire life and that Tortorella moved him to right wing despite Gaborik saying he’s uncomfortable on that side of the ice.

Without Gaborik, John Tortorella isn’t the Rangers head coach today. That’s a fact. Without his scoring and Lundqvist’s goaltending last season, the Rangers wouldn’t have been the top seed in the East and most likely would have missed the playoffs for the second time in three years. But Tortorella treats him like a fourth-line plug by benching him and asking him to play a blue-collar style of hockey by sacrificing his body for blocked shots and going into the corners with a purpose rather than being the elite goal scorer he is and is getting paid to be.

If you think Marian Gaborik is the Rangers’ problem then you’re likely someone who screams, “Shoot! Shoot it! Shoot it!” whenever any Ranger on the power play touches the puck. (I think Michael Del Zotto must hear and listen to these unintelligent fans since he does just that whenever he touches the puck on the power play, usually shooting it into someone’ shin pads or missing the next and shooting it into the corner.) Or you’re someone who treats the MSG T-shirt toss like there are blank checks wrapped up inside the shirts. (It’s scary what people will do for free T-shirts or foul balls.)

When Gaborik records a point, the Rangers are 7-3-2. The problem is that’s only 12 games and the Rangers have played 32 games. Gaborik does need to step up his game, but the treatment by him from the media and unintelligent fans has been unwarranted.

Maggie: “I never knew what the word ‘smug’ meant until I met you.”

Here’s John Tortorella’s resume dating back to his first season as head coach of Tampa Bay.

2001-02, Tampa Bay: Missed playoffs

2002-03, Tampa Bay: Lost in second round

2003-04, Tampa Bay: Won Stanley Cup

2005-06, Tampa Bay: Lost in first round

2006-07, Tampa Bay: Lost in first round

2007-08, Tampa Bay: Missed playoffs

2008-09, Rangers: Lost in first round

2009-10, Rangers: Missed playoffs

2010-11, Rangers: Lost in first round

2011-12, Rangers: Lost in Eastern Conference Finals

That’s one Stanley Cup, one Eastern Conference Finals loss, one second-round loss, four first-round exits and three missed playoffs. If Martin Gelinas’ goal counts in Game 6, I’m not here writing about John Tortorella and you’re not reading about John Tortorella because of the resume surrounding his Cup win with the Lightning. But 2003-04 did happen, so here we are.

If the Rangers miss the playoffs (let’s hope this doesn’t happen), Tortorella has to be fired. He has to be. He has one year remaining on his deal for 2013-14 that the Rangers would have to eat, but this is an organization that has eaten and wasted a lot more money than a one-year salary for a head coach for that one year to scare them away from letting him go.

I said last year that the Rangers had to make the Eastern Conference Finals for Tortorella to keep his job. Given their roster and the idea of winning now while Lundqvist is in his prime and while Nash, Gaborik and Richards are still effective (or should still be effective), I think the same goal holds true even if this season should have been about more than just reaching the conference finals.

It’s one thing to be “smug” if you’re Scotty Bowman and you have won the Cup nine times as a head coach in the NHL. But when you’re hanging your hat on one Cup and a lot of underachieving seasons in 12 years, you might want to lose the attitude because those media members you treat like dip spitters might be your colleagues one day when you’re fired and the only job available is one with a microphone in your hand.

My real problem with Tortorella is that he hasn’t proven himself in this city, but acts like his achievements in Tampa Bay hold weight here. They don’t. No Rangers fan cares what you did nine years ago with a Lightning team that had Vincent Lecavalier, Martin St. Louis and a 24-year-old Brad Richards. Two first-round exits, two missed playoffs and a conference finals loss isn’t enough to act like a winner in New York City. And being on the playoff bubble with Nash, Gaborik, Richards and Lundqvist is unacceptable.

MacKenzie: “Be the moral center of this show, be the integrity!”

The keyword here is “center.” Brad Richards plays center. He has five goals and 13 assists in 30 games. He has four points on the power play (the power play he is supposed to run) and just one of them is a goal. He is making $12 million this season. He made $12 million last season. If he plays out his entire Rangers contract, he will make $60 million over nine years.

When Richards signed with the Rangers I was worried about his concussion-riddled past and what it would mean if he sustained another one. I wasn’t worried about his scoring and playmaking ability. I’m not worried about it now either. I’m petrified.

But Richards did play his best game of the season on Tuesday night in Philadelphia (or maybe it just felt like that since he has played so many bad games). He scored on the power play in the second, added an assist in the third, shot the puck and even mixed it up in some scrums in front of the Flyers’ net after whistles. It was almost like the word “urgency” meant something to him or that he realized he is making $12 million and playing well a couple games a year comes with making $12 million.

Will: “What does winning look like to you?”

If we could go back in time to 13 months ago when I was campaigning for the Rangers to trade for Rick Nash, how many people that didn’t want to give up Chris Kreider back then wish the Rangers had? I think all of them.

Nash been the Rangers’ best player this season with 28 points in 28 games and leads the team in goals (12) and assists (16) despite missing four games. The Rangers are 16-10-2 (34 points) when he plays and 0-3-1 (1 point) when he doesn’t. He has been everything the Rangers could have asked for when they traded for him and everything they thought he could be when they almost traded for him 13 months ago.

The 2011-12 Rangers came within two wins of playing in the Stanley Cup Final without Nash. Would they have been able to beat the Kings if they made it there? Most likely not, but who knows? All we know is that the Rangers didn’t get a chance to find out because they couldn’t score enough goals against the Devils. They couldn’t score enough goals because once the lucky bounces and garbage goals they had been accustomed to producing in the regular season stopped happening, their real, true goal-scoring abilities were shown. And with Marian Gaborik playing with a torn labrum, those true goal-scoring abilities were limited to secondary options.

The 2011-12 season was the Rangers’ best chance at winning the Cup since 1996-97. It was the first time they had seen the Eastern Conference Finals in 15 years and everything, and I mean eve-ry-thing, broke their way during the regular season and the playoffs, prior to Adam Henrique’s overtime goal in Game 6, for the Rangers to even make it that far. The amount of come-from-behind wins and last-minute wins (or sometimes last-second wins) and overtime and shootout wins in the regular season was unbelievable. The Vezina play from Henrik Lundqvist, who took it up to a previously unknown level, was incredible and the bounces that went their way to survive two seven-games series and win both Game 7s were unthinkable.

The stars aligned for the Rangers to get to the Eastern Conference Finals in 2011-12 and when you look at the path that was put out for them with a first-round matchup against Ottawa and with Boston and Pittsburgh both eliminated in the first round and Philadelphia eliminated in the second round, it was a New York Giants-esque road to a championship.

I don’t want to look back on the 2011-12 season in a decade when the MSG Network is still creating new documentaries about the 1993-94 season because that was the last time the Rangers made meaningful memories in the spring and summer and think about what could have been if the Rangers traded for Nash five months earlier than they did.

P.S. Chris Kreider has two goals and one assist in 14 games and has been sent down to the AHL twice.

MacKenzie: “When should I start to worry?”
Maggie: “I’d have started already.”

The idea of watching the Stanley Cup playoffs without a real interest has crossed my mind, but I haven’t given it much thought since I also push it away with the notion of “They’ll be fine.” But will they be?

If losing to Florida at home or needing to rally to steal a point from the Capitals is the way this season is going to go and end over the next month then maybe the season won’t ever get out of Episode 2.

So, yes, MacKenzie, I’d have started already too.

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 25, 2013

The Same Old Rangers

It was another game and another loss for the Rangers, so that means another John Tortorella postgame press conference analysis.

When I started the tradition and made the promise to analyze every John Tortorella postgame press conference following a loss, I didn’t think the Rangers would lose every game, but that’s basically what’s happened. Since the first of these after losing to the Devils, the Rangers have lost to the Canadiens and lost to the Senators and lost to the Canadiens again. (They also lost to the Islanders, but that was on Valentine’s Day and I have already given my excuse for missing that game and the postgame press conference.) Starting with that loss to the Devils, the Rangers are 4-3-2, which isn’t even that bad since I was starting to think that maybe the start of these was the problem with the team. And then I remembered that when Rick Nash doesn’t play and Marian Gaborik gets benched, it’s hard for a team without secondary scoring to score and when you don’t score it’s hard to win.

The Rangers aren’t scoring or winning right now and John Tortorella is getting testier with each loss. With three straight losses in five days, Tortorella started his postgame press conference in Montreal by asking the media a question rather than the traditional way a press conference is held.

“How high did Pacioretty jump on his hit? Anybody give me an answer? I’m asking you guys. Over/under? No one can give me an answer? Figures, Zip, you’re wrong. No, I’m just asking.”

Tortorella has a point here that Max Pacioretty did leave his feet on the hit on Ryan McDonagh. The refs thought he left his feet on the hit and gave him two minutes for boarding, which was the correct call. Neither the MSG broadcast nor the Canadian broadcast of the game really took exception to the hit (OK, obviously the Canadian broadcast wasn’t going to) and the NHL Department of Player Safety determined that the hit wasn’t worthy of a suspension. So maybe it wasn’t that bad?

The Rangers got their two-minute power play for the hit, which was viewed by both broadcasts as payback for McDonagh hitting Pacioretty earlier in the game, but the Rangers failed to score a power-play goal (surprise, surprise) and wasted the opportunity and also lost McDonagh for the rest of the game.

On what happened in the second period when the game got away.

“We don’t generate enough consistently and they score a goal. Again we’re just not consistently having the puck … offensively. They score a power-play goal, ours doesn’t work. I think our game just fell off. I thought we had a really good first period, but it fell off from there.”

Tortorella almost made the right point here except he said “enough consistently.” What he should have said was, “We don’t generate anything.” “Consistently” would indicate that the Rangers score goals at times and at other times they don’t score any goals. But in reality, they don’t ever score goals.

Marian Gaborik has the most goals on the team. Marian Gaborik was benched for the entire third period on Saturday with the Rangers needing to score goals because of a penalty he took in the second period. Brian Boyle doesn’t score goals. Brian Boyle took a penalty that cost the Rangers a win and a second point in Ottawa on Thursday late in the third period. Nothing happened to Brian Boyle. You should always bench your leading goal scorer when trailing in a game in a shortened season. It’s just common sense.

Last week the Rangers played four games. They scored four goals in those four games and came away with just three of a possible eight points. And in the “really good” first period, the Rangers had six shots and no goals. (The Canadiens only had three shots in that period, but they would at least go on to score three goals in the second and third period.) The Rangers finished with 17 shots.

To say the power play doesn’t work is an understatement. The Rangers went 0-for-2 in the game and are 8-for-71 on the year. That’s 11.3 percent. That’s good enough for the 29th-best power play in the league. (Thankfully they aren’t 30th like the Sabres at 11.3 percent. Losers!) The personnel on the power play has to change. It has to. Brad Richards might have a Conn Smythe and a worthy reputation as a “playmaker,” but he has done nothing on the first unit this season. Whether it’s his constant overthinking, making one too many passes or shooting pucks into shin pads, Richards has been detrimental to the power play when he’s supposed to be the leader of it. I think making wholesale changes to a power play that is second worst in the entire league and sitting some of the expensive cap hits for less experienced players is necessary at this point. If the younger and supposedly less offensive guys don’t get the job done, what will have changed? The worst that can happen is the Rangers will regain their spot at the bottom from the Sabres, which they are one more unsuccessful power play from taking back anyway. The best that could happen is that they actually score with a man advantage.

On so many players getting injured.

“Yeah, it’s part of the game though. You have injuries. You gotta keep on playing. I mean what can you do, Sam? Some kids got a chance to play tonight, but again we’re not playing enough minutes, so we gotta figure it out and just try to find ourselves, keep our wits about ourselves and keep on playing here.”

Wait a minute. Just wait a minute. Who was that guy standing in front of the Rangers/Chase backdrop in a suit with a goatee talking about not having the full lineup and complaining about injuries after blowing a late lead in Ottawa on Thursday night? Whoever that guy was, he looks strikingly similar to the guy who stood in front of the Rangers/Chase backdrop after the Montreal loss on Saturday night and gave us that quote about injuries not being an excuse. Very, very strange.

If the team isn’t playing “enough minutes,” who’s fault is that? No, John Tortorella doesn’t play in the games, but it’s his job to decide who does and when and it’s his job to get the most out of his players. If his players aren’t “playing” for the entire 60 minutes of the game that falls directly under his job description as head coach.

On Michael Del Zotto not being able to play in the game.

“Well, it hurts. He’s a very good player for us. It hurts. He takes some big minutes.”

Michael Del Zotto missing time does hurt because Del Zotto is basically a somewhat fifth starting pitcher. He’s going to eat minutes and have his good games with his bad games and you just hope he doesn’t screw up too badly and cost your team a game, which he tends to do. The problem is that while Del Zotto hasn’t had a good season, the options below him on the depth chart aren’t as good, which is very scary. So when you’re worried about Del Zotto not being able to play despite him thinking he is Bobby Orr and Ray Bourque and thinking the power play runs through him, it’s never a good thing. Hurry back, Michael Del Zotto? (Yes, a question mark is the correct punctuation there.)

On severity of injuries to Girardi and McDonagh.

“No, I don’t know, and I’m not going to talk about it anyway.”

John Tortorella has the right to not talk about injuries, but choosing not to seems to be making his job harder. I’m not sure what talking about injuries will really do since if Player X has a concussion and Team Y finds out about it, I don’t think Team Y is going to purposely target Player X’s head in the 2012-13 NHL where contact to the head is finally being taken seriously. And I don’t think players are going to willingly put their own jobs and other players’ careers in jeopardy or forfeit their source of income to hit someone in the head.

Tortorella has started to get agitated and angry when asked about injuries and it really upsets him that media members want to find out why players are missing time and games so they can report it. As a fan, it would be nice to know why Rick Nash hasn’t played in the last three games since the team has scored three goals combined in the games he has missed. It would help to know if there’s a chance he might play on Tuesday against Winnipeg or on Thursday against Tampa Bay or if he will play again in March or April or at all again this season. (Sure, it’s extreme to wonder if he will be out for months, but how am I supposed to know if I don’t even know why he is out in the first place?) Fans deserve to know why their team’s most important offensive player isn’t playing and when he might play again. You know fans, the people who happen to be the reason that someone like John Tortorella is able to coach professional hockey for a job and afford to be fined $30,000 like he was after the Winter Classic or $20,000 like he was after ripping the Penguins last April.

On how to get more from his team.

“We’ve gotta try to gain some confidence. We’ve gotta try to just stabilize ourselves when we lose a couple. Coming into these last three games here we were playing pretty well. We find a way to get a point in Ottawa. We can’t get into a panic mode. We just need to get more minutes consistently out of our players and I mean it’s a hard question to answer, Sam. It’s just a matter of trying to find yourself and hope some good things happen and you gain some confidence.”

Before the season, Tortorella told Mike Francesa that in a shortened season you can’t afford to get into a jam because you might not be able to get out of it. The Rangers are in a jam sitting in 10th place in the East with the season 35 percent over and injuries mounting. They haven’t looked like a playoff team since their win in Boston seven games and 13 days ago and no one is talking about what the Rangers can do this spring, they’re talking about whether or not they will be playing after Game 48 and if Brad Richards will be amnestied by the team.

The 2012-13 Rangers were a team that was looking to build off a season in which they finished first in the conference and reached the Eastern Conference Finals. Instead they look like the pre-2011-12, post-lockout Rangers, who played by the strategy of “score the first goal and hope Henrik Lundqvist makes it stand.” Those Rangers team either didn’t make the playoffs or lost in the first round and never once made it out of the second round. This team is becoming those teams.

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 22, 2013

New York Rangers Hockey: ‘Grab Points When We Can’

John Tortorella was the most pissed off he’s been all season after Thursday’s 3-2 shootout loss in Ottawa.

You would think you could tell how pissed off John Tortorella is by how short and snippy his answers are, but that’s only part of the equation. To really tell how pissed off Tortorella is just listen to how many names of reporters he drops in his answers following a loss. On Thursday night in Ottawa, he used “Sam” for Sam Rosen of MSG, “Pat” for Pat Leonard of the Daily News and “Zip” for Steve Zipay of Newsday. It was the most pissed off Tortorella has been all season.

Keeping with tradition, here is the analysis of John Tortorella’s postgame press conference from Thursday night’s 3-2 shootout loss to the Senators.

On what areas he sees improvement.

“Oh, Sam I’m not going to go over areas and all that. I’m glad we got a point. I still don’t think our full lineup is playing, so we just got to keep grinding away until we get people playing and try to grab points when we can.”

Aww, poor John Tortorella and the Rangers. They don’t have their full team! They don’t have all of their best players! They don’t have their complete roster! Paul MacLean’s Senators just lost their Norris Trophy-winning defenseman for the season with a torn Achilles and overcame a late third-period deficit with their backup goalie after their starter sprained his ankle and still beat the Rangers. And Jason Spezza has only played five games (and has five points) due to injury. I didn’t hear Paul MacLean crying about his team’s injuries after Thursday’s game.

No one is going to feel bad for the Rangers and no one should feel bad for them. Yes, it sucks that Rick Nash has missed two straight games and will miss his third on Saturday, but part of being a good team is having depth and the Rangers don’t have much of it even when they are at full strength. Some people want to blame the lack of depth on the Nash deal that saw Brandon Dubinsky and Artem Anismov get shipped to Columbus, but if you want two dimes for a quarter then I can’t help you.

If the Yankees used “Heroes remembered, legends born” last season and are going with “A Timeless Legacy” in 2013, well John Tortorella gave us the 2012-13 Rangers’ slogan: “Grab points when we can.” Because when the lockout ended, coming off an Eastern Conference Finals appearance and with the addition of Rick Nash, “Grab points when we can” was exactly how I thought this season would play out. I was terribly mistaken to think that the number 1 seed a year ago could possibly keep up their level of play. Stupid me. So eff it! “Grab points when we can!” Let’s go Rangers!

On whether or not he sees the power play getting more consistent.

“I thought the past couple of games it’s been OK. We scored a big goal tonight. We still … we don’t have enough guys playing. We don’t. But we get a point, so we just gotta keep trying to grind way and get points until we have our full team playing here.”

Here are the facts aside from the most telling stat the the Rangers are 4-for-31 on the power play in February and last in the league on the power play on the year.

1. Rick Nash didn’t play on Thursday night.

2. Of Rick Nash’s 292 career goals, 83 (28 percent) of them have come on the power play. Of Rick Nash’s 267 career assists, 100 of them have come on the power play (37 percent).

3. Of Rick Nash’s 183 power-play points, one of them has come with the Rangers.

What does all of this tell us? Two things.

1. With Rick Nash in the lineup, the power play still sucks and Tortorella shouldn’t be blaming his absence on the special teams’ struggles.

2. The players Rick Nash plays with on the power play shouldn’t be on the power play.

How do we know this?

Rick Nash was a productive special teams player on the worst team in the league. He’s now supposedly playing with better players on the man advantage, but for some reason the power play isn’t scoring and it certainly isn’t because of him.

The power play needs new personnel. Michael Del Zotto doesn’t belong on the first unit and that needs to be the first change. Pierre McGuire told Mike Francesa that when Tortorella was an assistant coach he was a special teams expert, which only further complicates the situation since this should have been fixed by now.

(Everything else from Tortorella’s answer is the same as the first answer. Poor, Torts! He doesn’t have his best player! But his team has had the lead in their last three losses, but let’s not talk about that.)

On what was working on the line when Halpern jumped up with Callahan and Pyatt in the third.

“They forechecked. They had the puck.”

Can’t argue there.

On why he thought it was necessary to make that line change.

“Because we weren’t developing any offense, Pat.”

Fair enough.

On if he sympathizes a team that lost their number 1 goalie.

“Do I sympathize for what’s happened there? No, I … No.”

Then no one is going to sympathize with your injuries, so why keep bringing them up?

On if the play that injured Anderson was an accident.

“He was tripped. It was a goal too.”

OK.

On what happened with the quick whistle on Halpern’s waved-off goal.

“They said they must have lost site of the puck. I didn’t get an explanation. I don’t bother with that anymore.”

You don’t bother with should-have-been goals, but just said that Chris Kreider getting tripped into Craig Anderson should have been a goal. OK then…

On if Gaborik played better for the whole 60 minutes.

“Are you asking me a question or telling me, Zip? Ask me the question.”

“That line played well.”

If Gaborik’s line is the only line that plays well on Saturday night in Montreal, I’ll have a postgame press conference to analyze on Sunday.

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.

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 20, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the game as a whole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That pretty much sums it up, huh?”

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