Keefe To The City

May 16, 2013

Preparation for Rangers-Bruins Postseason Battle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-10: Missed playoffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

May 16, 2013

Rangers-Bruins Can Rekindle Bad Memories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 14, 2013

Rangers-Capitals Game 7 Thoughts: Finality in the Building

The Rangers won their first road Game 7 in franchise history and eliminated the Capitals thanks to five goals and a second consecutive shutout from Henrik Lundqvist.

Game 7 presents the scariest word in sports: finality. The finality of a team’s season is the worst imaginable situation in sports unless that team’s season ends with a championship. When finality comes at the end of the regular season and you know your team won’t being playing in a postseason which (in the case of the NHL) is about to go on for two-months plus, it’s devastating. And when your team is presented with finality in the first round of a postseason that will still have three rounds after it whether or not your team is in it, it’s devastating.

When finality becomes a possibility you start to think about the season and its games and the ups and downs and the disappointment knowing there will be an offseason and then training camp and then 82 games before the next postseason, and that between now and the next postseason the actual seasons will change and change again and change again and change again. Game 7 can be exhilarating to watch from an outside perspective like it was for any Rangers fan who watched the Anaheim-Detroit Game 7 on Sunday night. But when it’s your team and your season and your time that had been committed over the season (even if it was a shortened season), it’s not exhilarating. It’s petrifying.

At 8 p.m. on Monday the Rangers started a game in which finality was in the building for both teams just 28 hours after starting a game in which finality was present only for the Rangers in Madison Square Garden. Someone’s season was going to end on Monday night and I knew if the Rangers’ season was going to end in Washington, it was going to be because of their inability to score and not because of Henrik Lundqvist. But the Rangers found a way to score (and scored five times) and Henrik Lundqvist posted his second consecutive shutout. And for that, King Henrik starts things off in the Game 7 Thoughts.

– When the Rangers took a 2-0 lead, my girlfriend said, “The Rangers need to build a fort in front of the net.” And they did … when they used the 205^th overall pick in the seventh round of the 2000 NHL Draft on Henrik Lundqvist.

Monday was Lundqvist’s fourth career Game 7. He’s now 3-1 in those games and has allowed four total goals in the games. The one loss came in a 2-1 loss against the Capitals in the 2008-09 quarterfinals. But hey, he’s overrated and has never won the Cup, so let’s forget that he’s the best goalie on the planet! Only winning a championship matters when talking about talent and accomplishments. So yes, Chris Osgood was better than Henrik Lundqvist could ever be.

– How has Eric Fehr still not been suspended for his elbow on Derick Brassard in Game 6? Did Brendan Shanahan retire? Stupid question. Of course he didn’t. Who would retire from a job in which they don’t have perform well at and still get paid a ridiculous salary? (No, this thought doesn’t matter anymore since the series and Capitals season is over, but I just wanted to know how a blatant head shot away from the play goes unpunished.)

– It’s hard to know when Alexander Ovechkin is playing dirty and cheap and when he’s playing like the all-world, all-around magnificent player that he is. In Game 7, he played like the latter and proved his worth as the captain of the Capitals. (Even if he would later say the NHL had planned a conspiracy to force the series to a seventh game and have the Rangers win.)

– For as much as I get on John Tortorella, and I would say I get on him more than anyone in the Tri-state area, the Game 7 win was his best single-game coaching job as Rangers head coach. The win was the first on the road in franchise history and after losing Games 1, 2 and 5 in Washington and scoring just two goals in the three games, which included two overtimes, the adjustments made on Monday were perfect. The 5-0 win was as dominant of a performance the Rangers have had in a long, long time, especially in the postseason and I’m willing to give Tortorella credit for the win. You’re welcome, John. (And fine, you can stay for the 2013-14 season for now.)

– Here’s who scored in Game 7 for the Rangers: Arron Asham, Taylor Pyatt, Michael Del Zotto, Ryan Callahan and Mats Zuccarello. The only true offensive players in that list are Callahan and Zuccarello and Zuccarello is a playmaker before a scorer. What does this mean? Team effort. What else does this mean? Well…

– Rick Nash had zero goals in the Washington series. Zero. I mean for eff’s sake, he had just two assists. Henrik Lundqvist is the first reason why the Rangers can win any series in the postseason. The Rangers surviving a seven-game series with Nash scoring no goals is the second not only because it shows their depth, but it also means that if you believe in “being due” then Nash is more due than anyone in the postseason.

Tyler Seguin is also going through the same struggles as Nash after tallying just one assist in the Bruins’ seven-game series with Maple Leafs. That means that Nash and Seguin combined for 14 games played, no goals and three assists in the first round. Scoring has been a problem for both teams for stretches this season, including the postseason, but when you know that both teams were able to win series without their best scorers putting even one puck in the net, it’s remarkable.

– In the first game of the series, Brad Richards played 22:14. In Game 2 he played 20:41. In Games 6 and 7, he played 20:46 combined. Game 6 (9:34) was his least amount of ice time this season and most likely ever in his entire life and Game 7 (11:12) was his second-lowest amount of ice time this season (and most likely also his second-lowest amount of ice time ever in his entire life). This is the Rangers’ second-highest paid skater and the 2003-04 Conn Smythe winner responsible for John Tortorella’s Stanley Cup playing 20:46 in two combined elimination games.

Richards has been the focal point of “amnesty” conversation this season with a massive contract that runs through the 2020-21 season and he’s fortunate the Rangers made it through the first round. Richards now has at least another round to turn around his season and prove his worth to the team and to end the conversation that want him out of New York. I’m not sure that he will be able to fix the damage his game and reputation have taken this postseason, but displaying even a glimpse of the 2003-04 Brad Richards (eff, I’ll even take a glimpse of the 2011-12 Brad Richards) will go a long way in his return to the team next year.

The Rangers have eluded finality twice and now they have at least four more games left in their season. The next time finality is in the building for the Rangers, I can only hope Philip Pritchard is carrying it.

May 12, 2013

Rangers-Capitals Game 6 Thoughts: Extend the Season

Henrik Lundqvist put together the best performance of his career and the Rangers’ lone goal was the difference to force the series to a seventh game.

Editor’s note: These Thoughts are short because of my attendance at Game 6.

Two days later, tickets for Game 6 somehow fell to $65 just over two hours before the game. I would guess a combination of Mother’s Day and the idea of impending doom surrounding the Rangers would lead to the fall in tickets that were listed as $125 face value.

I went into Game 6 knowing that the first goal was likely going to win the game and if the Capitals scored first it was going to be painful watching the clock wind down on the 2012-13 Rangers.

One goal ended up being the difference in the game and Henrik Lundqvist had the best game of his career to date with a 27-save shutout. And that one goal happened because of Rick Nash’s strength on the puck and his inability to go down or dive like so many other stars in the league would have eagerly done in the same spot. Nash’s was able to fend off two hooks down the right boards and into the Washington zone, which started the forecheck on what would eventually turn into Derick Brassard’s goal.

So it was Lundqvist and Nash, the two players responsible for the Rangers being in the postseason, that kept their season alive for at least on more game. I said after Game 2 that I didn’t think it would be possible for this Rangers team to go at least 4-1 for the rest of the series and avoid elimination, but they’re now 3-1 and one win from starting over.

May 11, 2013

Rangers-Capitals Game 5 Thoughts: Happy to Have Other Plans

Henrik Lundqvist stood on his head again, but the Rangers lost Game 5 in Washington because of their inability to extend a lead or score more than one goal on the road.

I missed most of Game 5 of the series to host and attend a surprise birthday party for my girlfriend, so it’s hard for me to comment on the game other than to say it’s no surprise the Rangers once again scored just one goal in Washington and Henrik Lundqvist allowed just one goal and the team lost. And it’s absolutely awful that the Rangers scored 53 seconds into the game (Ladies and gentlemen, Brian Boyle!) and couldn’t add on and that Mike Ribeiro scored the game-winner in overtime. I’m happy I wasn’t able to watch this game in full.