Keefe To The City

Feb 9, 2015

Life without Henrik Lundqvist

Rangers fans will get a glimpse at what it’s like to not have Henrik Lundqvist in net, but fortunately, it’s just a glimpse and nothing something that will ruin the season.

Henrik Lundqvist has always had to prove himself. He had to prove himself when he was selected in the seventh round, 205th overall in the 2000 draft by the Rangers (62 picks behind goaltender Brandon Snee, who the Rangers picked two rounds ahead of Lundqvist). He had to prove himself when he was splitting time with Kevin Weekes in the 2005-06 season. He had to prove himself when he let up six goals against the Devils in Game 1 of the 2005-06 Eastern Conference quarterfinals and was benched for Weekes in Game 2. Even after winning the 2011-12 Vezina, leading the league in shutouts twice, becoming the Rangers’ all-time wins leader and being the sole reason for any of their success since the 2004-05 lockout, he somehow needed to more to shut people up.

Last spring when Lundqvist single-handedly carried the Rangers back against the Penguins to save the season by allowing just three goals total in Games 5, 6 and 7 and then led them to a series win over the Canadiens and then did everything he could but score goals to try to beat the Kings in the Final, he finally silenced most of the critics. That’s “most” not “all”. There’s still this idea that Lundqvist needs to put his name on the Cup to solidify what he has accomplished or that it won’t mean anything. But the people that believe that notion are people like Michael Kay (and most likely his listeners too, if there are any) and not people that live in real life. Because under that theory, Corey Crawford, Antti Niemi, Marc-Andre Fleury, Chris Osgood and every lesser goalie that has gotten their name on the Cup is better than Lundqvist.

For nearly his entire career, Henrik Lundqvist has been the Rangers. He has stood on his head in the regular season and done it again in the playoffs, doing everything humanly possible someone who can’t score goals can do. He has been surrounded by horrific offensive teams for most of his career and watched the organization decide to build a defensive core from scratch while he entered his prime. Despite this, the Rangers have been in the playoffs in eight of the nine seasons since the 2004-05 lockout, thanks to Lundqvist.

In the last six seasons, the Rangers have reached the postseason in five of those six years. In that time, they are 32-37, which means Lundqvist is 32-37 in the playoffs over that time (the go-to argument point for any Lundqvist critic is always his playoff record). In those 37 playoff losses, the Rangers have scored 57 goals or 1.54 goals per game. Here is the breakdown by goals scored in the losses and how many times they scored each amount of goals:

0 goals: 8
1 goal: 10
2 goals: 14
3 goals: 3
4 or more goals: 2

That’s 18 playoff losses when the Rangers couldn’t score more than one goal and 32 when they couldn’t score more than two.

I was always worried that Glen Sather would waste Lundqvist’s prime and career by building mediocre teams around him and wasting the chance at having a Vezina-winning franchise goalie. I figured Lundqvist’s career would come and go and we would be stuck watching another Mike Dunham-esque era eventually, always waiting for another Lundqvist to come around. But over the last few years, as that young defensive core grew into reliable and stable veterans, Sather has turned over the forwards on the team to build a consistent source of offense. And magically, the Rangers made it to the Stanley Cup Final last year and have appeared in two of the last three Eastern Conference finals.

When I heard that Lundqvist was missing Wednesday night’s game against the Bruins because he was hit in the throat two games prior on Saturday, I was nervous, but thought it was for precautionary reasons. (Then again, if the Rangers were going to be cautious, wouldn’t he have been removed from Saturday’s game or not have played on Monday?) When I heard that he could miss a few weeks, I was a little more than nervous. When I heard he could miss four to six weeks, I was depressed. When I heard he could have had a stroke as a result of the injury, I was in shock. How could the face of the franchise, who is signed up to be the Rangers goalie through 2020-21, not be looked at more carefully than he was after withering around in pain on Saturday? How could he have been not checked enough with a potentially life-threatening risk in play?

It sounds like Lundqvist is getting better and will be better with time. The problem is the whole “time” thing. Fortunately, the Rangers’ 18-5-0 run from Dec. 8 through the announcement that Lundqvist would miss Wednesday’s game has them with 65 points in 51 games and even if they were to go say 16-15-0 and play one-game-over-.500 hockey for the rest of the season, they would finish with 97 points, which would be one more than total from last season. And let’s say the Rangers did play .516 hockey for their last 31 games, the Panthers, who are in the ninth spot in the East would have to win 20 of their 31 remaining games or find a way to get 40 points in those games just to tie the Rangers. The Rangers are going to the playoffs. They just need Lundqvist to be 100 percent healthy and 100 percent ready when they get there.

If the Rangers hadn’t gone on that two-month run and built up enough of a cushion to be in the thick of the playoff picture rather than on the bubble of it where they usually are, we would have gotten to see what life is like without Lundqvist. We would have gotten to see what life is like not knowing what it’s like to know you have an all-world goalie in your net every night and someone who can steal games and build winning streaks. We would have gotten to see what would have happened if some insane fans had gotten their way last season and Sather didn’t give Lundqvist a contract extension. It’s not a life any Rangers fan should want to live. Thankfully four wins and eight points separate the Rangers from the closest non-playoff team and hopefully that lead never gets to the point of worrying about.

The Rangers are now 1-1-1 without Henrik Lundqvist and with Cam Tablot as their starter. On Wednesday, Talbot became the first Rangers goalie not named Henrik Lundqvist to beat the Bruins since April 8, 2006. On Saturday, he allowed three goals in a tough loss to the league-best Predators. On Sunday, he gave up three goals in an overtime loss to the Stars. It’s as exactly .500 as you can get from a backup goalie with the good, bad and so-so results that come with a win, loss and a tie. But it’s exactly what the Rangers need. It would be nice if Talbot could become Lundqvist 2.0, which he has looked like at times, but it’s unnecessary. They just need him to keep the team afloat, which is what they didn’t have in 2010-11 when Lundqvist was asked to start the last 25 games of the season after Martin Biron broke his collarbone. (And luckily Lundqvist did as the Rangers made the playoffs on the last day of the season.)

The Rangers are going to the playoffs unless a Mets-like collapse happens and all Tablot has to do is make sure that doesn’t happen while Lundqvist is out. It doesn’t matter what seed the Rangers are or who they play once they get in. The other seven Eastern Conference playoff teams are all capable of making a run to the Stanley Cup Final this season and the path to get there could be the hardest ever. They’re going to have to get by three of the seven teams to get back to where they were last June and all of them present a difficult challenge.

This team can survive for now without Henrik Lundqvist. But that’s for now. Eventually they will need their king back if they want to get to where they were last year and where they haven’t been in 21 years.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 6, 2015

Rangers-Bruins Sets Up Rubber Match

The Rangers finally beat the Bruins and the win sets up a decisive third and final game in March in Boston for the season series.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who else do you fear besides Montreal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Podcasts • Rangers

Feb 5, 2015

Podcast: Brian McGonagle

The Rangers beat the Bruins. It doesn’t happen often and hasn’t happened in almost two years, so when it does it’s important to talk about it.

The Rangers beat the Bruins. Writing that sentence doesn’t happen often, so let me write it again: The Rangers beat the Bruins. The Rangers blew a 1-0 lead, but overcame a 2-1 deficit to beat the Bruins 3-2 on Wednesday night at MSG for their first win over the Bruins since Game 4 of the 2012-13 Eastern Conference semifinals on May 23, 2013 and their first regular-season win over them since Feb. 12, 2013. It was their first regulation win over the Bruins since March 4, 2012.

Brian McGonagle, who is also known as Rear Admiral, of Barstool Sports Boston joined me to talk about the Rangers and Bruins, the worst matchups for the Eastern Conference playoffs, what Boston used to be like and the emotions of the final minute of Super Bowl XLIX.

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 5, 2015

The Rangers’ Player Tree

The Rangers signed Gump Worsley as a free agent in 1949 and somehow that led to them trading Ryan Callahan for Martin St. Louis in 2014.

Most nights during the Rangers season, you watch Ron Duguay on MSG. Dugay last played for the Rangers in 1987-88, his second stint with the team, but he was responsible for the Rangers trading for Martin St. Louis last year. That’s right, MSL being on the Rangers and the Rangers going to their first Eastern Conference finals in 20 years is because of Duguay. Well, not just Duguay. It’s also because of Eddie Johnstone, Mark Messier, Tomas Sandstrom and Tony Granato. It actually all started with Gump Worsley. Yes, Gump Worsley is the sole foundation of the Martin St. Louis trade. GUMP WORSLEY!

I went through the current Rangers’ roster and traced all 22 players back to the root of how they became a Ranger. The players are listed in order of how far their roots go with the Rangers reverse chronology.

KEVIN HAYES
Signed as a free agent on Aug. 20, 2014

LEE STEMPNIAK
Signed as a free agent on July 19, 2014

DOMINIC MOORE
Signed as a free agent on July 5, 2014

DAN BOYLE
Signed as a free agent on July 1, 2014

MATT HUNWICK
Signed as a free agent on July 1, 2014

TANNER GLASS
Signed as a free agent on July 1, 2014

J.T. MILLER
Drafted in 1st round, 15th overall in 2011

KEVIN KLEIN
Drafted Michael Del Zotto in 1st round, 20th overall in 2010

Traded Del Zotto to Nashville in exchange for Kevin Klein on Jan. 22, 2014

MATS ZUCCARELLO
Signed as a free agent on May 26, 2010

CAM TALBOT
Signed as a free agent on March 30, 2010

CHRIS KREIDER
Drafted in 1st round, 19th overall in 2009

DEREK STEPAN
Drafted in 2nd round, 51st overall in 2008

CARL HAGELIN
Drafted in 6th round, 168th overall in 2007

DAN GIRARDI
Signed as a free agent on July 1, 2006

JESPER FAST
Drafted Bobby Sanguinetti in 1st round, 21st overall in 2006

Traded Sanguinetti to Carolina in exchange for 2010 6th-round pick and 2011 2nd-round pick on June 26, 2010

Drafted Jesper Fast in 6th round, 157th overall in 2010 (from Carolina)

RYAN MCDONAGH
Drafted Tom Pyatt in 4th round, #107th overall in 2005

Signed Scott Gomez as a free agent on July 1, 2007

Signed Michael Busto as a free agent on May, 2007

Signed Ales Kotalik on July 9, 2009

Traded Pyatt, Gomez and Busto to Montreal in exchange for Ryan McDonagh, Doug Janik, Chris Higgins and Pavel Valentenko on June 30, 2009

MARC STAAL
Traded 2005 1st-round pick and 2005 2nd-round pick to Atlanta in exchange for 2005 1st-round pick

Drafted Marc Staal in 1st round, 12th overall in 2005 (from Atlanta)

RICK NASH
Traded 2004 2nd-round pick to Arizona in exchange for 2004 2nd-round pick and 2004 3rd-round pick on June 26, 2004

Drafted Brandon Dubinsky in 2nd round, 60th overall in 2004 (from Arizona)

Drafted Artem Anisimov in 2nd round, 54th overall in 2006

Drafted Roman Horak in 5th round, 127th overall in 2009

Traded Horak, 2011 2nd-round pick and 2011 2nd-round pick to Calgary for Tim Erixon and 2011 5th-round pick on June 1, 2011

Traded Dubinsky, Anisimov and Tim Erixon to Columbus in exchange for Rick Nash, Steven Delisle and 2013 conditional 3rd-round pick on July 23, 2012

DERICK BRASSARD and JOHN MOORE
Traded 2001 3rd-round pick to Minnesota for 2001 3rd-round pick and 2001 5th-round pick on June 23, 2001

Drafted Garth Murray in 3rd round, 79th overall in 2001

Drafted Al Montoya in 1st round, 6th overall in 2004

Traded 2004 2nd-round pick to Arizona in exchange for 2004 2nd-round pick and 2004 3rd-round pick on June 26, 2004

Drafted Brandon Dubinsky in 2nd round, 60th overall in 2004 (from Arizona)

Traded Garth Murray to Montreal for Marcel Hossa on Sept. 30, 2005

Drafted Artem Anisimov in 2nd round, 54th overall in 2006

Traded Hossa and Montoya to Arizona in exchange for Josh Gratton, David LeNeveu, Fredrik Sjostrom and 2009 conditional 5th-round pick

Drafted Roman Horak in 5th round, 127th overall in 2009 (from Arizona)

Signed Marian Gaborik as a free agent on July 1, 2009

Traded Horak, 2011 2nd-round pick and 2011 2nd-round pick to Calgary for Tim Erixon and 2011 5th-round pick on June 1, 2011

Signed Blake Parlett as a free agent on June 2, 2011

Traded Dubinsky, Anisimov and Erixon to Columbus in exchange for Rick Nash, Steven Delisle and 2013 conditional 3rd-round pick on July 23, 2012

Traded Gaborik, Parlett and Delisle to Columbus in exchange for Derick Brassard, John Moore and Derek Dorsett and 2014 6th-round pick on April 3, 2013

HENRIK LUNDQVIST
Drafted in 7th round, 205th overall in 2000

MARTIN ST. LOUIS
Signed Lorne Grump Worsley as a free agent in 1949

Signed Leon Rochefort as a free agent in 1957

Signed Dave Balon as a free agent in 1958

Signed Len Ronson as a free agent in 1960

Traded Balon, Rochefort, Len Ronson and Worsley to Montreal in exchange for Phil Goyette, Don Marshall and Jacques Plante on June 4, 1963

Drafted Jack Egers in 4th round, #20th overall in 1966

Traded Goyette to St. Louis in exchange for 1969 1st-round pick

Drafted Andre Dupont in 1st round, 8th overall in 1969 (from St. Louis)

Drafted Mike Murphy in 2nd round, 25th overall in 1970

Traded Dupont, Egers and Murphy to St. Louis in exchange for Gene Carr, Wayne Connelly and Jim Lorentz on Nov. 15, 1972

Traded Carr to Los Angeles in exchange for 1977 1st-round pick

Drafted Eddie Johnstone in 6th round, 104th overall in 1974

Drafted Ron Duguay in 1st round, 13th overall in 1977 (from Los Angeles)

Drafted Lance Nethery in 8th round, 131st overall in 1977

Traded Lance Nethery for Eddie Mio on Dec. 11, 1981

Drafted Chris Kontos in 1st round, 15th overall in 1982

Drafted Tomas Sandstrom in 2nd round, 36th overall in 1982

Drafted Tony Granato in 6th round, #120 overall in 1982

Traded Duguay, Johnstone and Mio to Detroit in exchange for Mike Blaisdell, Willie Huber and Mark Osborne on June 13, 1983

Drafted Larry Bernard in 8th round, 154th overall in 1985

Traded Chris Kontos to Pittsburgh in exchange for Duguay on Jan. 21, 1987

Traded option to swap 1989 1st-round pick with Montreal in exchange for Chris Nilan on Jan. 27, 1988

Traded to Duguay to Los Angeles in exchange for Mark Hardy on Feb. 22, 1988

Traded Hardy to Minnesota in exchange for future considerations (3rd-round pick in 1989) on June 13, 1988

Traded Larry Bernard and 1989 5th-round pick to Minnesota in exchange for Hardy on Dec. 9, 1988

Drafted Steve Rice in 1st round, 20th overall in 1989 (from Montreal)

Drafted Louie DeBrusk in 3rd round, 49th overall in 1989 (from Minnesota)

Traded Sandstrom and Granato to Los Angeles in exchange for Bernie Nicholls on Jan. 20, 1990

Traded DeBrusk, Rice, Nicholls and future considerations (David Shaw) to Edmonton in exchange for Mark Messier and future considerations (Jeff Beukeboom) on Oct. 4, 1991

*** The roots for Martin St. Louis technically start here, but Messier doesn’t re-sign with the Rangers in 2000 if he hadn’t been there for the run in the 90s, so it all goes together***

Signed Messier as a free agent on July 13, 2000 (he had signed with Vancouver as a free agent on July 28, 1997)

Traded the rights to Messier to San Jose in exchange for future considerations (2004 4th-round pick)

Drafted Ryan Callahan in the 4th round, 127th overall in 2004 (from San Jose)

Traded Callahan, 2014 conditional 2nd-round pick (became a 1st-round pick with Eastern Conference finals appearance) and 2015 1st-round pick (and 2015 7th-round pick once Callahan re-signed) to Tampa Bay in exchange for Martin St. Louis (and 2015 2nd-round pick once Callahan re-signed)

Blogs • NFL

Feb 2, 2015

Pete Carroll Should Be Fired

Pete Carroll made the worst decision in the history of sports and he should be fired for losing Super Bowl XLIX for his play call.

Pete Carroll should be fired. That’s not me pulling a Bob Kravitz saying Robert Kraft should fire Bill Belichick because the Patriots’ footballs in the AFC Championship Game may or may not have been purposely deflated. That’s me saying the head coach of the Super Bowl XLVIII champion Seahawks and the head coach of the 2014 NFC Championship Seahawks, whose team was one yard away from being the first repeat champions in 10 years should be fired for exactly that: having his team one yard from being champions and blowing it.

“Blowing it” isn’t even the right term for Carroll did. Bill Buckner “blew” the play on the grounder in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. Scott Norwood “blew” the kick in Super Bowl XXV. Trey Junkin “blew” the snap for the Giants against the 49ers in the 2002 playoffs. A lot of Packers “blew” the final minutes of the NFC Championship Game. Pete Carroll didn’t “blow” Super Bowl XLIX. He chose not to win it.

Of course Pete Carroll isn’t going to be fired. But he should be. He single-handedly cost the Seahawks a second straight championship, and if anyone can afford to eat a few million dollars, it’s Paul Allen.

It’s Pete Carroll’s fault that the Patriots’ won their fourth championship. It’s Pete Carroll’s fault that Tom Brady has as many Super Bowl wins as Joe Montana and people honestly think Tom Brady is the best quarterback ever now. It’s Pete Carroll’s fault that Darrelle Revis is now Wade Boggs. It’s Pete Carroll’s fault that the Patriots’ drought is over. It’s Pete Carroll’s fault that the Seahawks didn’t cover and my picks for the season finished one game under .500.

Here are all the reasons why Pete Carroll should have ran the ball on second-and-goal from the 1:

1. Marshawn Lynch just carried the ball four yards on first-and-goal from the 5. He had 102 yards on 24 carries, for an average of 4.3 yards per carry. He is Marshawn Lynch. He is the best running back in the world.

That’s it. One thing. That’s all that should have gone into deciding what play to run from the 1 with 20 seconds left. And if Lynch were stopped on second down from the 1, the Seahawks still had one timeout remaining and could have used it to guarantee themselves at least one more chance for Lynch to gain one yard, or three feet, or 36 inches or 91.44 centimeters. That’s what separated the Seahawks from a second straight Super Bowl with the best running back in the world as their way to get there.

I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to accept Pete Carroll’s thought process for the call, but let’s look at his explanation to try and understand it.

“Let me just tell you what happened because, as you know, the game comes right down and all the things that happened before are meaningless to you now. It’s really what happened on this one sequence that we would have won the game.

“We have everything in mind, how we’re going to do it. We’re going to leave them no time, and we had our plays to do it. We sent in our personnel, they sent in goal-line (package) — it’s not the right matchup for us to run the football — so on second down we throw the ball really to kind of waste a play.

It’s not the right matchup? Let me say it again: Marshawn Lynch just carried the ball four yards on first-and-goal from the 5. He had 102 yards on 24 carries, for an average of 4.3 yards per carry. He is Marshawn Lynch. He is the best running back in the world.

If anything, it wasn’t the right matchup for the Patriots. Because the Seahawks at the goal line aren’t the right matchup for any team because they have MARSHAWN LYNCH. MARSHAWN LYNCH!

“If we score, we do. If we don’t, then we’ll run it in on third and fourth down.”

What the eff? Is that a real-life quote? So, you’re willing to run the ball on either third and fourth down against … wait for it … wait for it … wait for it … THE PATRIOTS’ GOAL-LINE DEFENSE, but you’re unwilling to run the ball against the PATRIOTS’ GOAL-LINE DEFENSE on second down? How does that make any sense? Do you think the Patriots are going to change their defense on third or fourth down from the 1? Are they going to get out of their goal-line defense at the goal line? Why are third and fourth down different from second down in this situation?

You have to love the explanation not including the whole possibility of an interception, which could happen any time the ball is thrown in the air.

“Really, (we called it) with no second thoughts or no hesitation at all. And unfortunately, with the play that we tried to execute, the guy (Butler) makes a great play and jumps in front of the route and makes an incredible play that nobody would ever think he could do. And unfortunately that changes the whole outcome.”

No second thoughts? No hesitation? The thought “Hey, we have the best running back in the world on our team and he needs to get one yard for us to win the Super Bowl” never came into your mind? The thought “The ball could get tipped at the line or deflected by someone or intercepted” never entered your head? Oh, OK.

Malcolm Butler did make a great play and it was his play that won the Patriots the Super Bowl. But Carroll should in no way be congratulating Butler or talking about how incredible of a play it was because the play was only made possible by his decision to not run the ball.

“So I told the guys in the locker room that they’re a great team and they fought to prove that, and they did everything to do that again tonight. And they’re on the precipice of winning another championship, and unfortunately, the play goes the other way. There’s really nobody to blame but me, and I told them that clearly. And I don’t want them to think anything other than that. They busted their tails and did everything they needed to do to put us in position, and unfortunately it didn’t work out. A very, very hard lesson. I hate to learn the hard way, but there’s no other way to look at it right now.”

There’s nothing like when a professional athlete or coach accepts or takes the blame or responsibility for something went wrong and then every mainstream media member or beat writer nerd calls them a class act or refers to them as a stand-up guy. Carroll should take the full blame for the Seahawks losing the Super Bowl and for handing the Patriots their fourth championship in 14 years.

And there’s no silver lining in Carroll’s decision. “Learning the hard way” isn’t a good lesson or the moral of the story. It’s a ridiculous line from a person who made the most ridiculous decision in sports history.

“Really the way the route generally works is the back receiver gets shielded off so that the play can get thrown to the guy trailing. And it’s worked really well, it’s been a nice concept, but they jumped it — did a fantastic job. I don’t know if they prepared to do that or he did it on his own, but it was a great play.”

It was a great play by Butler, only made possible by Carroll’s play call. And it was Carroll’s play call. Even if Bevell suggested the play or was the one to relay the play to Wilson, Carroll is the head coach and has the final say on any call and absolute power to veto any decision made by his coordinators.

If Lynch fails to get in the end zone on second or on third down or fourth down and never gets in the end zone or if he fumbles the ball and loses it on any of those plays, so be it. Then you can talk about the Patriots making a great play and then you can tip your hat to their effort. If you lose with your best player trying to do what he does best, so be it. Don’t lose the Super Bowl because you run a passing play to Ricardo Lockette, a receiver with 18 career regular-season receptions, at the 1-yard line. Lose because the best running back in the world couldn’t get one yard.