fbpx

Tag: Boston Bruins

Blogs • Rangers • Rangers Playoff Thoughts • Rangers Playoffs

May 26, 2013

Rangers-Bruins Game 5 Thoughts: The End

The Rangers’ season ended with a Game 5 loss to the Bruins ending any chance at an epic 3-0 series comeback.

When the Rangers took a 1-0 lead 10:39 into the game with a power-play goal I started to think ahead about winning Game 5, taking Game 6 at MSG and being back in Boston for Game 7 and a chance to avenge the Yankees’ 2004 ALCS loss. But the Bruins scored 3:48 into the second period and then again 9:53 later and I knew it was over. The Rangers had gotten incredibly lucky scoring once and they weren’t going to score again. So I left.

I left the house in Nantucket I was staying in for Figawi and Memorial Day weekend and I walked the seven-tenths of a mile to The Chicken Box, the bar on the island you need to get in line by 7:30 p.m. on the Saturday of the weekend to have any chance of getting in at all. The temperature had dropped into the 40s and it was pouring rain. Given that it was May 25 and should have been at least 30 degrees warmer without rain, it felt like it was freezing. I walked to The Box in the “freezing” rain and stood in line for at least 30 minutes in the same rain in shorts and a T-shirt knowing that inside hundreds of Bruins fans were watching their team enjoy the finality of the Rangers season.

I didn’t see how the Rangers season ended. I missed most of the third period walking to the bar and standing in line to get into the bar. I didn’t see the Bruins’ third goal (an empty-net goal) with 51 seconds left in the season. I didn’t see the last minute or the last second of the 2012-13 Rangers and I’m happy I didn’t. I want to forget about the 2012-13 Rangers because there isn’t much good to remember about them. It shouldn’t be hard since they are a forgettable team.

(More to come to look back at the season.)

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 13, 2013

Dreaming of a Rangers-Bruins Postseason Series

The Rangers and Bruins met for the last time during the regular season, so an email exchange with Mike Hurley was needed to look back at the three meetings between the teams.

Thanks to some awesome scheduling from the NHL, the Rangers and Bruins won’t meet again this season unless it’s in the postseason. After 12 games, the Rangers and Bruins have played their entire three-game schedule against each other for 2012-13 and it’s going to take a seven-game series this spring if the growing rivalry is going to get a new chapter this season.

With the season series coming to an end, I decided to fill the email inbox of Mike Hurley from CBS Boston with garbage until he finally responded and agreed to an email exchange. OK, so I really didn’t have to beg him since he had nothing else going on (and usually doesn’t), but he wanted me to make it sound like it was really hard to get him to do this exchange since he’s “really busy.”

Keefe: I wanted to be in Boston last night for Rangers-Bruins and I wanted to be at Halftime Pizza before the game eating the best slices in Boston (there are only one or two others place in the entire city worth eating pizza sober at) and pounding their massive draft beers that for some reason taste better than draft beers from anywhere else. But the NHL went and scheduled the second and last meeting between the two teams on a Tuesday night, so I did watch the Rangers-Bruins game and I did eat pizza and drink draft beers, but I did it over 200 miles from TD Garden.

After blowing a two-goal lead to the Bruins in the third game of the season at Madison Square Garden, the Rangers blew a three-goal lead in the last 11:16 on Tuesday night. And while you have to credit the Bruins’ heart (or their “hearts of lions” as Jack Edwards referred to it) for their miraculous late-game comeback, I’m going to also discredit the Rangers’ shot-blocking strategy, which is actually more of a negative than a positive for the team’s defense and the reason for the Bruins’ third-period effort.

Henrik Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world. The best goalie in the world needs to see the puck and he needs to see the shot. He doesn’t need to be playing from behind screens and trying to anticipate whose stick the puck will end up on when Ryan Callahan and Dan Girardi simultaneously sacrifice their bodies and seasons like Secret Service members trying to protect the President. Yes, the Bruins erased a three-goal deficit in the third period and scored twice with an empty net, but none of it would have been possible without some perfect rebounds courteous of too much traffic created in front of the Rangers’ net by the Rangers themselves.

The Rangers did come away with two points and managed to get four of a possible six points against the Bruins this season, but they let the Bruins pick up points in the final minutes of each of the last two games. And while it was good to see the Rangers win their third straight and win on the road in Boston, I get the feeling that no one in Boston views last night’s loss as a loss and that’s not good for the Rangers or me or anyone. These two teams will hopefully meet again this spring and the last thing the Rangers need is the Bruins believing they can always come back against them and that they are never out of a game, and despite losing twice to the Rangers, the Bruins must feel like they have the Rangers’ number. If the Bruins are practicing today, I’m sure the mood in their locker room is of a team that won on last night and not of one that lost.

I guess whenever anything goes wrong like it did in the third period there is someone to blame and someone to praise, but am I am discrediting the Bruins’ comeback too much and placing too much of the blame on the Rangers? And did you get a goody bag with your TD Garden dinner on Tuesday night that looked like everything you would find at a five-year-old’s birthday party?

Hurley: For the record, because of awful traffic due to the blizzard, I got to the Garden late and had no time for dinner, so I ate an oreo brownie, a fudge roll, a big pretzel with mustard, a cup of popcorn and a plate of M&M’s and gummy worms for dinner in the press box. I am 7 years old and everyone knows it, so it’s OK.

I do think you’re right to discredit the Rangers a bit. On 99 out of 100 nights, Anton Stralman’s weak wrister doesn’t beat Tuukka Rask, and on probably 90 out of 100 nights, Derek Stepan’s shot gets stopped easily with the glove. So on a night when they don’t have a somewhat gift-wrapped 3-goal lead, they might not be so fortunate to leave the building with two points.

That said, the Bruins do deserve some credit. They realized against that mess of bodies and No. 30 in net, the only way they were scoring was going to be on a rebound. Andrew Ference’s point shot was intentionally low, and Nathan Horton banged home the rebound. Dennis Seidenberg intentionally shot at Milan Lucic in the slot, and the redirect on Lundqvist led to an open net for David Krejci. And though Brad Marchand just got a lucky break for his goal, that was a pretty good snipe. So it’s not as if the Rangers blew the lead to the Flames or anything.

But it was a blocked shot that led to that opportunity for Marchand to score the game-tying goal, which allowed the B’s to walk away from the season series with four out of six points in the season series as well. So you’re not crazy for thinking the shot-blocking strategy can work against them. You are crazy for a lot of reasons, but not that one, I suppose.

Keefe: For the record, you told me about four hours before the game that you were going to eat healthy and detox after your brother’s wedding weekend. But really, I don’t think you had any plans other than to eat those things for dinner whether there was traffic or not.

When I see Rick Nash do the things he did to the Bruins defense and then to Tuukka Rask, I can’t help but think how they would have gotten past the Devils last May if they had traded for Nash last February. (Yes, I would still trade Chris Kreider for Nash if it was still an option.) And when I see the things that Marian Gaborik does like Nash, I can’t help, but think about how the Bruins have no one like Nash or Gaborik though Tyler Seguin will one day be Boston’s version of those two. And when I realize that the Bruins don’t have a true superstar (even though Pierre McGuire thinks Patrice Bergeron’s is one of the best players in the league), I wonder how they are so good even without Tim Thomas. But then you watch them play and you realize why they are so good.

The Bruins, for some unknown reason, find a way to score despite true scoring ability and a power play that makes even the Rangers not feel so bad about their man advantage and more importantly they find a way to win and win all types of games. I can’t explain it and I’m not sure if it’s even explainable because a team with that roster shouldn’t be this good without their best player (the Conn Smythe winner turned social media guru).

I know you’re probably going to say depth and defense and you might even talk about Claude Julien (I said “might”), but help me out here: Why are the Bruins so good? And why are they so good even without a single player whose jersey you would want to buy and wear?

Hurley: Well for one, Rask is a great goalie in his own right. He led the league in goals-against and save percentage in 2009-10, so it’s not like he’s some stiff off the street. Then you have Julien’s system, which above all else requires responsibility in your own end. That’s why Seguin barely played as a rookie — he wasn’t going to be put onto the ice until he could learn to play in the defensive system. Something tells me that as a kid, back-checking and getting sticks in passing lanes wasn’t drilled into the head of a kid as talented as Seguin.

So with that system, they’re rarely out of games. The 3-0 deficit against the Rangers was odd in that regard. And while they may not have a Steve Stamkos, they’re not short on talent up front. Nathan Horton is a big-time player. All the guy does is score big goals. The Bruins wouldn’t have made it out of the first round in 2011 if not for Horton, and his absence last spring was the reason the Bruins were wiped away in the first round.

Patrice Bergeron lacks flash, but if you were to assign grades to parts of his game, he’d get A-minuses across the board. He’s also won 63.6 percent of his faceoffs, which quietly goes a long way toward earning victories. Brad Marchand has a bad reputation for just being an agitator, but he’s a talented player who has a knack for scoring and has never been afraid of any moment or situation. David Krejci can be a wizard with the puck on his stick (still not a Marc Savard, but a decent knockoff) and Seguin is always a scoring threat every time he’s on the ice.

Add in third-liner Rich Peverley, who’d likely be a top-six forward in a lot of cities, and a fourth line that contributes while rarely making mistakes, and you just have a solid hockey team.

(I said hockey in case you were confused if I was talking about a football team or something.)

Oh, I should’ve mentioned, they’re also big on saying things like “compete level.” Julien hasn’t done an interview in the past five years without assessing his team’s compete level, and it’s spread to Peter Chiarelli and Cam Neely and now everyone who talks about the team.

It means “trying hard.” Yes, the millionaire hockey players need to be rated on whether they’re trying hard or not.

Regardless of its apparent stupidity, it really seems to work. It’s very rare you see the Bruins just lay a complete stinker, and teams know when they’re playing the Bruins that they’re in for a long battle. A lot of teams can’t handle it.

Keefe: Is Andy Brickley saying “compete level” yet or is he too busy talking about “points being at a premium” the way Edzo drops “active sticks” on everyone?

Everyone is talking about the Rangers and Bruins meeting again in the postseason for the first time since the 70s, you are one of these people, but a lot of these people are saying it’s going to happen. A lot of people said this last year too, but they forgot that eight teams make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference and just because people want a series to take place doesn’t it mean it will. And if it doesn’t take place in the quarterfinals then a lot has to go right for it to happen at all.

It’s been so long since these two teams have met in the playoffs and the New York-Boston rivalry has taken so many twists in the last 10 years that I don’t know what to expect if this series ever takes place and I don’t know if I even want it to. When the Yankees play the Red Sox, the Yankees are supposed to win. When the Knicks play the Celtics, the Celtics are supposed to win. When the Giants play the Patriots, the Giants always win. But what happens if these two teams meet again this year in the postseason? Who would have the upper hand? I can’t imagine this series would be good for my blood pressure especially coming in the beginning of baseball season. Maybe I will just pull for Rangers-Devils again.

Hurley: I’d like to see it happen because unofficially, without looking it up, I can state with complete confidence that every single Bruins-Rangers game in the past four years has been on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and has been a one-goal game, almost always 1-0 one way or the other. That’s all factual. Don’t look it up though.

What happens if they meet? That’s why we want them to meet — it’s impossible to predict. The Rangers have the edge in offensive firepower, but so did the Canucks in 2011. It would be captivating hockey, and honestly whichever team emerged from that series would probably be too beaten, bruised and exhausted to go on a Cup run. But I wouldn’t mind watching it. Maybe even while enjoying some Halftime.

Keefe: OK, I looked it up. Here are the last 15 Rangers-Bruins games going back to 2009-10, which are the four years you told me to not look up.

NYR 4, BOS 3 (SO)
NYR 4, BOS 3 (OT)
BOS 3, NYR 1
BOS 2, NYR 1
NYR 4, BOS 3
NYR 3, BOS 0
NYR 3, BOS 2 (OT)
NYR 5, BOS 3
NYR 1, BOS 0
BOS 3, NYR 2
NYR 3, BOS 2
BOS 2. NYR 1
NYR 3, BOS 1
NYR 3, BOS 2
NYR 1, BOS 0

That’s 11 of 15 games that were decided by one goal. You were close.

It does feel like all of their games have been on Saturday or Sunday afternoons and they were all started by Tuukka Rask, which is weird considering over that time period Tim Thomas was the best goalie in the NHL. (Well, he was according to voters, but anyone who watched Henrik Lundqvist play behind awful teams know that it was King Henrik who has been the best goalie in the league for several years now.)

Only three of those games weren’t decided after three periods and one of them was on Tuesday night. While shootouts are fun when your teams wins, they are usually a letdown unless Rick Nash gives you a YouTube-worthy goal or unless Pavel Datsyuk is participating in the shootout. You have been a strong advocate of getting rid of the shootout and I’m on board with the idea. But what’s the solution? Is it 10 minutes of 4-on-4? Is it five minutes of 4-on-4 and then five minutes of 3-on-3? How can we make it so that the action that we saw in the five minutes of overtime on Tuesday night doesn’t end abruptly to have a breakaways decide a great game?

Hurley: 1. Rask started most of those games because Timmy T couldn’t handle the lighting at MSG! Remember? The lights were different for Tim!

2. You’re such an awful person for throwing my 10-minute, 4-on-4 period in there like you thought of it. Let the record show that’s my solution.

Actually, for years I (mostly jokingly) argued that the NHL should have five minutes of 4-on-4, and if it’s still tied, then five minutes of 3-on-3, and if it’s still tied then 2-on-2, and if it’s still tied then GOALIE DEATHMATCH AT CENTER ICE.

Because that’s a little extreme, and because we’d run out of goalies pretty quickly, I propose a simple 10-minute period of 4-on-4 hockey. I freaking love 4-on-4 hockey. I’ve been to three games at the TD Garden this season that have featured full five-minute periods of overtime, and they’ve all been thrilling. It’s like taking the best players on the planet and throwing them into an arcade game for five minutes. D-men get forced out of their comfort zones to be a part of odd-man rushes, then they get stuck out of position and lead to another odd-man advantage going the other way. Goalies are forced into hyper-mode, and the game is an all-out frenzy for 300 seconds.

Then they stop it abruptly and start a breakaway contest.

It makes no sense.

If you were showing an alien around earth and wanted to introduce it to the sport of hockey, you could show it five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime and the little freak would be in love with hockey forever. Five more minutes of that, and how many ties would we really end up with? You’d have to think that with 10 minutes of all that open ice, one team is going to be able to bury one goal.

And why do we hate ties so much to begin with? Is it really because fans don’t like the feeling of going home after a tie? For one, since when does the NHL give a crap about how fans feel? But even more so, when has that ever been a consideration in a league deciding the rules which govern its standings?? That’s insane. And thirdly (I could go until 12thly but I’ll stop), don’t fans feel worse when they leave a game which their team lost in a shootout than they would if their team had just tied? This isn’t rocket science here. Why are we having shootouts?

Oh, and if you take away the automatic point of making it to overtime, with a tie resulting in one point apiece and an OT win giving two points to the victor and bupkis to the loser. That would only make that 10 minutes of 4-on-4 overtime even better.

And I’m not even someone who out and out hates the shootout. I just prefer watching hockey.

Keefe: You told me today you were going to give short, concise answers because no one wants to really hear what you have to say. So much for that like your diet.

I don’t really miss ties because I had seen my fair share of ties in real life as a child, but you’re right the NHL doesn’t care about the fan at all, so why start by eliminating ties and changing the record books and point system and goalie’s records? It doesn’t make sense. If Gary Bettman is going to be the worst commissioner to ever run a major sports league in North America, he might as well go all the way with it.

Bring back ties! Bring back the red line! Add “obstruction” to penalties again since penalties aren’t already the result of “obstructing” something! Have North America vs. the World for the All-Star Game and bring back the Goalie Goals competition to the Skills Competition! Sign a deal with FOX! Let them make the puck glow again!

The NHL.com video player is currently the worst piece of technology available and it works like something from 1999, so why not just change everything in the league back to a time when Jaromir Jagr led the league in scoring with the Penguins, Ron Tugnutt posted a 1.79 GAA and Byron Dafoe was playing goal for the Bruins? There’s a good question: What happened to Byron Dafoe? That might be an entire email exchange itself. “Bruins Goalies Between Andy Moog and Tim Thomas.” I think I know what our next email exchange will be about. And if it isn’t about that I’m sure we’ll talk again between now and Opening Day in the Bronx.

Hurley: I’m not sure what happened, but I’m nearly positive your brain just completely stopped working for a few paragraphs there. I’m not sure how it all came out in English. I don’t even know what to say. I don’t know when we’ll talk again, but how about this — don’t email me. I’ll email you.

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Jan 23, 2013

Rangers Better Be Ready for Rematch with Bruins

The Rangers haven’t won a game and the Bruins haven’t lost a game, so obviously it was time for an email exchange with Mike Miccoli.

The bad news is the Rangers are winless. The good news it’s only been two games. However, the troublesome news is that the season is only 48 games long and there really isn’t any time for a losing streak.

Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers, contributes to this site and also happened to be my roommate for freshman year of college, joined me to talk about what happened between the Rangers and Bruins on Opening Night in Boston and what to expect this season, including their rematch on Wednesday night at Madison Square Garden.

Keefe: The first thing I thought of when I heard the lockout was over was that I wouldn’t be able to read your sarcastic tweets about not being able to watch hockey anymore. Actually I take that back. The first thing I thought was “Woooooooooooooooo!” and then I thought about your tweets. After two games I’m not so sure I want hockey back.

The Rangers are 0-2 and for someone who takes regular season losses like season-ending losses (see: my take on the Yankees), this start sucks. The Rangers lost in Boston on Saturday and then were embarrassed at home on Sunday. Henrik Lundqvist was pulled in Game 2 of the year after not being pulled once in 2011-12. He has given up seven goals in two games. I think he gave up seven goals all of last year.

But I’m sure you don’t want to hear me complain. The Patriots were just destroyed at home by the Ravens with a Super Bowl trip on the line and Tom Brady’s legacy took another hit. But hey, at least your hockey team is 2-0 and will be when I walk in the MSG doors for the first time this year on Wednesday night.

Miccoli: Tom Brady is a legend even though he can’t throw the ball and catch it at the same time. You should have learned that last year. But seriously, how are things in New York? Is Torts on the hot seat? Lundqvist demand a trade yet? Think about this for a second: by Thursday morning, the New York Rangers could be 0-3. That’s six percent of the 2013 season completely wasted for a team that so, so many predicted to come out of the East.

Now I know what you’re thinking: it’s early. Of course it is, but when will the Rangers gain traction? For me, the biggest issue is all of the passengers. Guys like Marian Gaborik, Chris Kreider and Carl Hagelin have been invisible so far. When three of your supposed, All-Star top-six forwards are just watching, that’s a major problem.

The Bruins, on the other hand, have been firing on all cylinders. Did you watch the Winnipeg game? Ondrej Pavelec owes his two posts a steak dinner and a six-pack each for bailing him out so many times. Realistically speaking, the Bruins should have won that game 8-1, maybe even 9-1 if it wasn’t for so many dings. In net, Tuukka Rask is making Bruins’ fans forget about Tim Thomas quicker than they forgot about the lockout once they charged hundreds of dollars to their credit cards for crappy balcony seats.

I just hope the renovations at MSG are complete enough so that Rask doesn’t have to use that excuse on Wednesday.

Keefe: It’s too bad about the Patriots. I was really hoping they would win the AFC Championship and head to their sixth Super Bowl in 12 years. It’s really too bad.

Please don’t bring up the MSG renovations. It was one of the last remaining buildings that had that old-school feel to it and now it looks like every other modern arena on the inside. Sure, the amenities are awesome and the new seats are better than the cheap Metro North-like plastic seats (or the T commuter rail seats for you and I know you’re used to those), but I will miss the look and feel of the old interior. It might as well be the cement block with no character on Causeway Street in Boston. Actually, I take that back. Nothing can be that bad.

You’re right about Gaborik and Kreider and Hagelin. Too many times have they been out there for Sunday Skate watching the play rather than being in the play or trying to make something happen. But you know who hasn’t stood around and watched the play happen? Rick Nash.

When it comes to Nash, I haven’t been this excited for a player’s arrival in New York since Alex Rodriguez in 2004. And that’s either a good thing when you think about the two AL MVPs and arguably the best postseason for anyone ever in 2009. Or it’s a bad thing when you think about the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2012 postseasons, the admission to using performance-enhancing drugs or any of the 9,817 headlines he made for non-baseball related events.

We’ll get to your Bruins, but after two games of seeing Rick Nash as a Ranger, he has been the player I thought he would be and the player I was willing to trade the whole system for last February. He scored his first goal as a Ranger on Sunday against the Penguins and had several other high-quality scoring chances in the game as well as on Saturday against the Bruins. If his play continues at this level and the rest of the team realizes that the season has started and Derek Stepan and Michael Del Zotto are taking off the first unit on the power play, Nash will have quite the season.

Miccoli: I’m actually elated that Rick Nash ended up in New York since I was getting sick and tired of hearing about how he’d look good in a Bruins uniform for the past year. Little did I know that Glen Sather would be able to frisk Scott Howson in the deal, making it one of the more lopsided trades in recent memory.

Here’s the thing with Nash: I think he’s one of the most overrated players in the NHL. I get that he never had any help in Columbus and the best center he played with was a past-his-prime Sergei Federov but for his $7.8 million cap hit, he’s going to end up as more of a burden than a savior for a Rangers team that’s already pretty well stacked. Sure, he’s a physical player who will help get the momentum going eventually and score a decent number of goals but I think he could crack under the pressure in New York. I mean, he was playing in Columbus and only scored 40-plus goals twice in nine seasons, eclipsing 70-plus points once. ONCE! Want to know who has a similar trend in point totals in fewer seasons? David Krejci. And he’s not even the Bruins’ No. 1 center.

If Nash couldn’t pad his stats in Columbus where he was the entire show, I don’t know how he could in New York when there are plenty of other scorers who could pose a threat to opposing teams. I should probably mention his postseason experience of a whopping four games since 2002-03, but I’d rather you not go Andy Bernard on me and punch a wall this early in the season.

But I guess when you can acquire an All-Star player who is consistent for spare parts that you were looking to get rid of anyway, it’s not a terrible thing.

Keefe: “Newsflash. It’s not funny. In fact, it’s pretty freakin’ unfunny!”

Woah, woah, woah. I didn’t think the conversation was going to go this way. Overrated? Overrated? Overrated? I feel like Derek Zoolander screaming, “One look?! One look?! One look?!” “Rick Nash” and “overrated” should never be used in the same sentence. This falls in line with my unnecessary Dennis Seidenberg bashing last week

As a 19-year old, Nash led the NHL in goals with 41 goals for Columbus. That team finished the year with 62 points, which was good enough for 27th place in the league and 29 points out of the eighth seed in the West. Their top assist man was David Vyborny. Da-vid Vy-born-y. He had 31 assists! 31!

As a 24-year old, Nash scored 40 goals again for a Columbus team that finished seventh in the West and was swept in the first round in their only playoff series ever, though Nash had three points in that series.

The man has scored at least 30 goals in seven of his nine NHL seasons and one of the two years he didn’t was when he was an 18-year-old rookie (he scored 17). Sure, you could make the case that he always has more goals than assists (290-259 career), but who was he supposed to pass to all those years in Columbus? Kristian Huselius? R.J. Umberger? A washed-up Sergei Fedorov? The answer is no one. So he didn’t pass. He just dangled through entire teams by himself and produced goals like this.

I think he did a fine job trying to pad his stats in Columbus, but he couldn’t because there was literally no help on the team … at all … for nine years! Nine years! It was a one-man show and he did the best he could, which was an average of 32 goals a year on the worst team in the league for the last decade. I think he will do a much better job putting up even better and more even and balanced numbers with other stars surrounding him and guys who can actually feed him the puck and do some of the work for him. He will make what is usually an embarrassing power play dangerous and will be the difference maker for this team in the postseason (if they can win a game first).

There’s a reason I was willing to give up everything for him a year ago and why I believe he would have been the difference between playing the Kings for the Cup and losing to the Devils in six games. There’s a reason he was part of the first line for Team Canada in the 2010 Olympics and on their first power play unit. There’s a reason why his cap hit is $7.8 million. And there’s a reason why I’m not worried about it. Rick Nash is the real deal.

Miccoli: I look forward to your demeanor six months from now if the New York Rangers aren’t crowned Stanley Cup Champions. Don’t get me wrong, the Rangers are a good team, a really good team, but that’s exactly it: they’re a team. Rick Nash can produce as much as possible but if they’re not getting contributions from other stars like Gaborik and Richards, production from their depth players and secondary scorers and a strong effort on the blue line, the season could take a turn.

And what about Lundqvist? Seven goals in two games seems like a billion for a guy known for being stingy in net. (Hey, that’s almost four times as many goals that Rask has allowed!) For a goalie that has carried a team on his back for years, wouldn’t it be ironic for him to suddenly falter?

Now don’t get me wrong, I still think King Henrik is still one of the best netminders in the world, even if he makes glove saves after the puck has crossed the goal line. He made some tremendous saves in Boston, allowing only three goals on 34 shots, which seems like a lot for a team synonymous with throwing their bodies in front of pucks as if they were crash test dummies. Can’t say I’d do the same if I was out there, so there’s that, but the Rangers shot blocking was one of the main reasons why they were so successful last year.

Now the power play…yeah, I feel your pain. At least you don’t have to endure the “Bruins are 0-for-(insert number of past Bruin here) on the power play” tweets like I have to. Easily the worst trend to come out of the Bruins’ Cup run … and there were some doozies.

Keefe: Henrik Lundqvist entered the Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera and Eli Manning level of respect from me in that I won’t say something bad about him … ever. (However, there are some “Ladies and gentlemen, Eli Manning” tweets floating around there from the final weeks of this season.) The only difference is that Lundqvist hasn’t won a championship. Actually, there’s another difference: Lundqvist has never really had much help in seven years. That’s why this year is supposed to be different.

Last year I pleaded with anyone who would listen about why the Rangers had to trade Rick Nash. My reasoning was simple: You can’t keep wasting years of Henrik Lundqvist’s prime. The Rangers didn’t add a scorer in Nash and they couldn’t score consistently in the playoffs and they lost in the Eastern Conference Finals. I don’t know for sure that Nash would have had produced a Rangers-Kings series, but I like to believe that I know for sure that he would. Instead the Rangers relied on lucky bounces and garbage goals, which they relied on for a lot of their regular season wins that got them the No. 1 seed, but when those bounces stopped finding them, they lost. They needed seven games to knock off the No. 8 Senators and the No. 7 Capitals and then they couldn’t solve a 40-year-old Martin Brodeur, who looked 80 at times, and an offense that had very similar problems. But it probably didn’t matter because I don’t think any team was beating the Kings last spring and summer. Though I’d like to think a team with Henrik Lundqvist in net would have had a better chance.

Up until last year, the Rangers’ game plan was score the first goal and then hope for a shutout. It’s why their postseasons only lasted one round for a few years. Last year things looked like they would start to be different and there was some secondary scoring added around Marian Gaborik. Now the team has Gaborik and Nash and Brad Richards and Ryan Callahan and Carl Hagelin and Chris Kreider and Derek Stepan. There’s no reason the 2010-11 game plan of playing for one goal and if you’re really, really lucky, two goals should still be the plan.

Like I said, I won’t fault Lundqvist for any of the team’s problems through two games (I have to remind myself it’s only been two games) and even though seven goals in two games is a problem, the Rangers have allowed 73 shots in 60 minutes. I’m not sure that’s a recipe for success and I’m not sure going 1-for-9 on the power play is one either.

As for the shot blocking, that’s what everyone always wants to talk about with the Rangers. And while it shows a blue-collar mentality and a lunch pail and hard hat image for New York City, it can do just as much bad for the team as it can good. It seems like most goals Lundqvist allowed last year were a product of blocked shots off Rangers that screened him or deflected. That hasn’t necessarily been the case this year, but letting the Penguins play “Rebound” in front of him isn’t exactly a good idea.

On Saturday, the Rangers lost to a better “team.” I’m not sure the Bruins will be the better team after Game 48 (I just wanted to write that to see how weird it sounded and read coming off the fingers onto the screen), but right now the Bruins are the better “team” with less new faces and more chemistry than the Rangers. The same goes for the Penguins. I’m not sure 96 hours is enough time for the Rangers to get it together since seeing the Bruins, but I would like to think they took the time on Monday and Tuesday to try some line combinations that will last more than one shift.

But I said it: The Bruins are a better team … right now. And that’s without crazy man Tim Thomas in net.

Miccoli: The Bruins are one of a few teams that could actually benefit from a 48-game season. Aside from the obvious Tim Thomas departure (which still bugs me, but I’ll get to that), only Benoit Pouliot, Joe Corvo, Greg Zanon and Brian Rolston have left the team. Five years from now, this will be more forgettable than that time the Bruins had Yan Stastny, Petr Tenkrat and Stanislav Chistov on the roster. The additions to the lineup Chris Bourque, Dougie Hamilton and even a healthy Nathan Horton, give the Bruins an instant upgrade from when we saw them last, leaving the ice after Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Quarterfinals. I can preach about the importance of chemistry (which the Bruins have), the benefits of a positive locker room (this, too) and even the crucial depth needed to win the Stanley Cup (hey, the Bruins have this too!), but I think that’s best saved for their play on the ice.

The Bruins have the opportunity to be a Stanley Cup contender for a long time. They have incredible depth playing in Boston right now and a boatload of prospects who should be NHL-ready as soon as next season. Factor in the development of players like Tyler Seguin, Brad Marchand and Tuukka Rask and you have a wide-open championship window for Boston. That’s exciting, since no other Boston sports team is in a situation quite like the Bruins. Everyone hates the Red Sox, the Celtics are old and too many people are whining about the Patriots. Never in a million years did I think that the Bruins would be the toast of the town. But now they are and they know it, too.

Bruins coach Claude Julien said on Monday that he was aware of the team’s obligation to the city. Andrew Ference is tweeting about how much he loves the city and how the team loves playing in front of the fans every night. Patrice Bergeron even talked about how much of an honor it was to wear the Bruins jersey and play at the TD Garden every night. Call it clichéd, but this team genuinely gets how important hockey is to the city. David Krejci said that the whole team is having a lot of fun out there and it sure looks it, since they’re firing on all cylinders. All of the vibes surrounding this team right now are overwhelmingly positive.

Which brings me to Tim Thomas. I don’t know why Thomas decided to pack up his bags and move to Colorado. I don’t know why Thomas thinks he’s an automatic lock for the U.S. Olympic team in 2014 after, you know, just not playing for a year. I don’t know why Thomas’ sudden affinity for social media fascinates everyone, either (I’m curious if everyone was like this when their parents joined Facebook? I know I was.). What I do know is that without Tim Thomas, the Boston Bruins do not win the Stanley Cup and are not in the same position that they’re in today. Sure, Thomas was a distraction last season with all of the off-the-ice crap and his statistics dipped too. To me, the two share zero correlation. Thomas’ was never going to replicate his 2010-11 season again and while under every single spotlight in Boston, every move he made was criticized. It got sickening fast and I think Thomas started to play it up a little because really, there was nothing else for him to do.

I remember Tim Thomas as being the guy who won a Stanley Cup for the Boston. That’s how I choose to think about it. With that, I’m more than ready for the Tuukka Rask era to begin.

Keefe: Ah, Petr Tenkrat. There’s a name I forgot about for a reason and never expected to hear again. There’s a blast from the past and a name I forgot and didn’t expect to hear ever again. As for Tim Thomas, I hope my friend in Boston, who got a tattoo on his arm of Thomas holding the Cup is thinking about Thomas the same way as you. Otherwise he has a guy with a well-known Facebook page in a Bruins jersey holding the Cup tattooed on his body for life.

I’m happy to see your dream come true of the Bruins being the focal point of Boston once again like it’s the 70s or late 80s or early 90s there. I only wish this had been the case when I was still living in Boston, so there would have been excitement in the city for hockey. Or maybe it would have been nice if Gary Bettman didn’t cancel the season in the year that we lived together just blocks from the then-FleetCenter. Gary Bettman! What a guy!

All of this positive talk about the Bruins makes me wish I could talk the same way about the Rangers. I can feel the excitement and jubilation from you through the computer screen. Instead the Rangers are winless with the Bruins coming to the Garden and looking at Philadelphia twice, Toronto and Pittsburgh for the rest of January. Things need to turn around and they need to turn around starting against your team.

Miccoli: All is not lost … at least not yet. It’s still early and luckily for you, they only hand out the Stanley Cup after the first few games of the season in Toronto. As far as the Bruins and Rangers go, it’s sad to see their season series concluding in just two weeks when the Blueshirts visit the Garden on Feb. 12. But the end for these two teams? Not a chance. I think this is finally the year that the Rangers and Bruins meet in the Eastern Conference playoffs. And if that happens, I can’t possibly think of a better way to expedite years off of my life.

Here’s my quick confession: the New York Rangers are the team to beat in the East, even if they look like a PeeWee youth hockey team playing in their first game after tryouts right now. They just have all of the pieces and once they click, they’ll be a well-oiled machine capable of crushing teams that stand in their way. I don’t think it will be the Pittsburgh Penguins in the hunt alongside the Rangers, but rather the Boston Bruins. Both teams just stand out for me. While I’m sure this would make for an incredible playoff series, I won’t look forward to the Boston vs. New York narrative that both markets will eat up at every possible opportunity, but at least that will mask the four-hour Red Sox-Yankees series that everyone will forget about. But the hockey games, oh, the games will be fun. Late spring, playoff hockey between two of the best teams in the East. Doesn’t get much better, does it? Ahh, hockey!

I guess the Rangers have to win a game first, though, which is good news considering they have the Flyers Thursday night. Ilya Bryzgalov is always good for a pick-me-up.

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • NHL

Jun 13, 2012

The NHL Season That Was

With the NHL season in the books it only seemed right to look back at what was learned over the last eight-plus months in an email exchange with Mike Hurley.

The 2011-12 NHL season lasted 249 days starting with the Bruins-Flyers game on Oct. 6 and ending with the Kings’ Game 6 win over the Devils on June 11. With the season in the books it only seemed right to look back at what was learned over the last eight-plus months in an email exchange with good friend and also enemy Mike Hurley.

Keefe: The NHL Season started on Oct. 6. How do I know that? Well it was the night before the Yankees lost to the Tigers in Game 5 of the ALDS at the Stadium. Do you know long ago that was?!?! Forever ago. The NHL goes on and on and on and then when it ends, it starts up again just a couple months later, and I guess that’s why I love it so much. From the time the Bruins won the Cup a year ago until now, it’s felt like one long season. And when you consider that your Bruins were eliminated from the playoffs 59 days ago and the playoffs just ended on Monday it’s pretty insane.

We thought (along with just about everyone else) that the Rangers and Bruins would meet in the Eastern Conference Finals, but that idea didn’t exactly go according to plan. In the end it was the eighth-seeded Kings beating the sixth-seeded Devils in the Stanley Cup Final, which makes me asks whether or not the current NHL playoff format is the best possible format? I’m not saying this because the Rangers didn’t get by the Devils, but because it seems like there should be more incentive to win the conference. In 2012 with cookie-cutter rinks and luxurious travel for teams, home-ice advantage has become nonexistent.

Two years ago I proposed the idea that 10 teams in each conference make the playoffs with the bottom four teams (seeds 7, 8, 9 and 10) playing a three-game series (7 vs. 10 and 8 vs. 9) on consecutive days during the off days between the regular season and the start of the playoffs. All three games would be at the higher seed’s arena, and the two winners would become the seventh and eighth seeds in the playoffs.

I know it might be a little much and closer to the baseball postseason format, which we both hate, but I don’t think you can have byes in the NHL, and this is the closest thing to giving the top two seeds an advantage, while making the rest of the teams play to stay out of the three-game series.

Hurley: As someone who gets nauseous any time someone mentions the new baseball postseason format, I’m not sure I can fully endorse your plan. I do agree though that the NHL season and postseason shake out isn’t entirely fair and doesn’t make too much sense.

Basically, this year you had the Kings go 40-27-15, though they entered March at 29-23-12, which gave them a .453 winning percentage. I don’t know how you judge teams, but to me, that’s not very good.

Then you had the Devils, who went 48-28-6. That’s not all that bad, but their season ended with six straight wins.

I don’t bring these records up to take anything away from the Kings or Devils, but I do think it illustrates how meaningless the 82-game regular season is in the NHL.

The problem with your solution is that you’re adding two teams to an already-diluted playoff field. Yes, the eighth-seeded Kings won this year, but would you really have wanted to add Calgary, Dallas, Buffalo and Tampa to this year’s playoff field? And do you want 66 percent of teams making the postseason? That only goes to make the regular season even more useless.

I disagree with you when you say that you can’t have byes in hockey. After that marathon regular season, teams that are beaten and bruised need nothing more than a little rest to get just a little bit stronger for that postseason push, which can last the better part of three months. Just look at the Kings this postseason: They had five days off after winning their first-round series, six days off after sweeping the second round and seven days off after eliminating the Coyotes in five games. Clearly, there was no rust factor at play there, as the team was able to stay healthy and open up 3-0 leads in every single series it played, which is an absurdly ridiculous accomplishment.

Now, would the Kings have been able to do the same if they had to toil through a first-round series before facing a well-rested, top-seeded Canucks team? Maybe, but at least the Canucks would have earned some advantage for winning 51 games from October through April.

One thing that DEFINITELY needs to be changed is the whole “winning your division automatically gets you in the top three spots in the conference” fiasco. That’s absurd. The Bruins were the No. 2 seed in the East this year but should have been fourth. The Panthers were the No. 3 seed but should have been sixth. The divisions in hockey aren’t distinct enough to warrant such a major impact on playoff seeding (though the NHL has its hands full with that atrocious realignment plan, so perhaps this issue can be cleared up when the league makes another attempt this summer).

Keefe: OK, you have talked me out of the more teams and three-game series and into the byes. Maybe you should have been a salesman. I also agree on the ridiculous seeding with division winners, which is just as ridiculous as what baseball is doing with letting division winners with worse records than wild-card teams get into the ALDS without any problem. I forgot that I’m not supposed to mention the new MLB postseason format around you.

We have had our fair share of talks about the Patriots and how what they did between 2001 and 2004 will most likely never be seen again. To win week after week in the postseason and essentially one-game playoff after one-game playoff along with three Super Bowls in four years is something that is close to impossible in sports. Look at the Giants. They won two times in four years, which seems unfathomable, and I can think of hundreds of plays and decisions that had even one of them gone the other way they would have never won the Super Bowl, let alone made the Super Bowl, let alone made the playoffs! But I’m sure that’s a topic that makes you more nauseous than the MLB postseason format.

You brought up some good points about the chances of repeating in the NHL in past discussions and how the combination of a lengthy season mixed with a summer of partying as champions and having less of an offseason, plus the fatigue factor and every team wanting to beat the defending champions for 82 straight games takes a toll on a team. The Bruins and Canucks finished last season on June 15, even later than the end of this season, and then both went out in the first round to a 7-seed and an 8-seed respectively. Sure, the Capitals and the Kings might have just been better teams or better during that one series, but then you look at the 2010-11 Blackhawks and they barely made the playoffs before going out in the first round. The 2009-10 Penguins, who many thought would go back to the Cup for a third straight year, were bounced in the second round by the inferior and eighth-seeded Canadiens. I guess the back-to-back years of the Penguins and Red Wings in the Stanley Cup Final in 2007-08 and 2008-09 are the exception to the rule, but still there hasn’t been a repeat for the title since the Red Wings in 96-97 and 97-98, and those teams were stupid. I mean they went 32-10 in the playoffs in those two years, including 8-0 against the Flyers and Capitals for the Cup.

So should we pencil in any team other than the Kings for the Cup in 2012-13? Does this mean the MSG Network won’t have to keep making series and commercials and documentaries about the Summer of ’94?

Hurley: Some day, perhaps we’ll have a discussion where you don’t mention the Giants winning Super Bowls. Alas, that day is not today.

I did like that you told me I’ve brought up some good points. That is probably the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me, so I feel it’s best that I repay you with something nice. So, um, I guess I can say that when I see your face, I don’t want to punch it ALL the time, just most of the time. That’s nice, right?

I really believe that in this salary cap era, it will be nearly impossible for a team to repeat. I know the Penguins and Red Wings both made it back in two straight years, but the variables there were having the two best players in the world on one team and having the deepest, smartest roster on the other. That’s just rare. And the long injury problems that have followed Sidney Crosby since then only go to further my belief.

I probably feel that way after watching the Bruins closely in their post-Cup run. There were the obvious parties and $150,000 bar tabs and the endless sightings of Brad Marchand wearing no shirt and Tyler Seguin wearing his pants far too low, but I don’t think those were the problems that prevented the Bruins from getting back to the top. For one, there was the massive dropoff in intensity from their 25 playoff games to the first month of the regular season, when they went 3-7-0. And it’s really hard to quantify, but you really saw a lot of lesser teams around the league “get up” for their home game against the Bruins. I’m fairly positive that a half-dozen people became deaf in Winnipeg on Feb. 17, when the Jets beat the Bruins 4-2, and I’m equally as sure that there were riots on the streets of St. Paul when the Wild shut out the Bruins two days later.

Once the playoffs rolled around, the Bruins didn’t have Nathan Horton to score the crucial goals they needed, and an above-average Tim Thomas wasn’t nearly as good as the absolutely phenomenal Tim Thomas who showed up the previous spring.

And even with Horton and Thomas, the Bruins still needed a lucky bounce off a diving Canadien to win Game 7 of the opening round last year. If that puck doesn’t go in, and Montreal ends up scoring in that overtime, then I’m not sitting here talking about the Boston Bruins because nobody would care about the team that can’t get out of the first round.

The point is, it’s so ridiculously difficult to win one Cup in today’s NHL. It’s doubly impossible to do it two years in a row.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go punch a few walls because you mentioned the new MLB playoff format around me.

Keefe: I wasn’t going to talk about it because I feel like it might be a sensitive topic for you, but since you mentioned Tim Thomas, let’s talk about him. Or let’s try to at least answer the question: What is Tim Thomas doing?

It’s June 13. In two days it will be one year since the Bruins won the Stanley Cup. When the Bruins won the Stanley Cup, Tim Thomas was a hero in Boston. I don’t want to say that he would ever sustain being in the class that Tom Brady and David Ortiz are in, but he was right there, and he was at least in that class for a little while. He became so big that my friend Derek from Boston got a tattoo of Thomas holding the Cup on his arm, and no one thought it was weird.

Let’s look at what happened over the last year…

Thomas morphed into the first face of the Bruins since Joe Thornton left town, and he gave the blue-collar fans a blue-collar hero who didn’t become a starting goalie in the league until he was 36. This is the same guy that was stuck on the depth chart behind Andrew Raycroft, John Grahame and Steve Shields at different points in his NHL career. Even after becoming the starter, the Bruins signed Manny Fernandez to be the starter over Thomas in 2007-08.

But then Thomas decided to not go to The White House with his teammates to celebrate their championship with President Obama. It’s not like Thomas was a fourth-liner or someone who was a healthy scratch on and off during the playoff run … he was the sole reason the team was at The White House and he didn’t show up. Then he decided to not talk to the media when he didn’t feel like it, started being a distraction to the team and his teammates because of his Facebook page, his play slipped, and it all came together when he spoke oddly about the team following their Game 7 playoff loss to the Capitals. And then out of nowhere he decided he wasn’t going to play in 2012-13 despite being under contract in an attempt to play for Team USA in the 2014 Winter Olympics even though he was the backup goalie in 2010 and even though Jonathan Quick (the third goalie in 2010) and Ryan Miller (the starter in 2010) will play over him. Did I leave anything out?

After writing all that, it seems crazy that a year ago Thomas could have had opening containers of alcohol in Faneuil Hall while wearing no clothes and urinating on a sausage and peppers cart, and nothing would have happened to him. Now he’s just this weird guy who won the team their first Stanley Cup since 1972.

What the eff happened?

Hurley: We could probably spill a few thousand words on Thomas alone, so I’ll try to be succinct. Essentially, goalies are always the weirdest guys on the team, but in a position full of weirdos, Thomas stands out as one of the weirdest.

But I’m not even sure this is about Thomas being weird. I think it’s about him having leverage. Peter Chiarelli clearly didn’t read the CBA before signing Thomas to that four-year, $20 million contract, otherwise he’d have known that the team would absorb that $5 million cap hit whether Thomas played, quit, or moved to Italy to become a butcher. Thomas’ agent, knowing that the no-trade clause expires on July 1, pulled the only bit of leverage he and his client had — they made Thomas untradeable. Or at least, they made themselves a necessary part of any potential trade talks. Thomas knows the Bruins would be happy to trade him (and his cap hit) and let Tuukka Rask start 60-65 games next season, and by declaring he won’t play next year, it requires that any interested team would have to talk to him before acquiring him. If it’s, say, Columbus and he doesn’t want to play there, he’ll likely just tell the Columbus brass that he doesn’t plan on playing next season. If it’s, say, Colorado, and that idea excites him, then he’ll go for it.

I think that’s the business side of it. Maybe I’m a bad person for not taking Thomas’ “Friends, Family and Faith” thing at face value, but given his aspirations to play for Team USA, and his inclusion of sponsor links in his “heartfelt message” that he posted on Facebook, I think you’re a fool to not be skeptical.

Now, the part about his fall from grace is truly fascinating. The guy never had the personality to be someone like Ortiz, and he lacked the youthful greatness of Brady during the Super Bowl days, but he had unquestionably the most remarkable story of any athlete we’ve ever seen. He was the 217th pick in 1994, picked behind goalies named Henrik Smangs, Vitali Yeremeyev, Luciano Caravaggio and Evgeni Ryabchikov. When he finally made it as a full timer in the NHL more than a decade later, most of us laughed at the thought of him as a starter. He was too erratic, too wild and too out-of-control to last in the best league in the world. And he kept proving us all wrong, kept improving his numbers every single year and ultimately turned in one of the best postseason performances of any goalie ever.

Now? He’s burned more bridges that anyone thought possible, and to just about everybody around the team, he’s as good as gone. And it all happened in less than one calendar year. Truly unbelievable.

Keefe: Tim Thomas wasn’t the only guy associated with the 2011-12 season that became a focal point in every media session. We had one of those in New York in John Tortorella.

Tortorella has had this cocky attitude and swagger about himself since showing up to New York for Tom Renney in the middle of the 2008-09 season, and while the Rangers could have used a coaching change back then, it wasn’t really necessary. After Renney had returned the team to respectability (after Glen Sather spent a decade erasing any and all of that respectability) by returning to the playoffs in 2005-06 and reaching the second round in 2006-07 and 2007-08. Then with some inconsistent play in ’08-09, he was gone. Maybe the team needed a new voice and a shakeup like we saw with the ‘08-09 Penguins and Dan Bylsma or this year’s King with Darryl Sutter, but it seemed like a quick hook. If this season’s Rangers team wasn’t good enough to win the Cup (or even reach it), thinking that the 2008-09 was good enough to do so and needed a coaching change to do so is just crazy.

But Tortorella’s attitude since coming here has been “I won in 2003-04 and no one in New York has won since 1993-94.” He has carried himself this way with the media every chance he could get, and I decided that he had to take this team to the conference finals for him to finally win me over, and for him to stop banking on his success with the Lightning as a way to carry himself. He did just that and now I’m a card-carrying member of the John Tortorella Fan Club whether or not I really want to be.

As an outsider, and a fellow native of Massachusetts like Tortorella, how is he viewed from your perspective? For me, I have no choice, but to like him after he held up his end of the bargain that I created and he never knew about, and because not liking John Tortorella around here is like not liking Nick Swisher.

Hurley: I think he’s an A-hole. Should I go on?

I don’t care if a guy doesn’t say much when he talks to the media. Really, I don’t at all. Athletes/coaches/whoever not talking to the media becomes such an overblown story line these days, and honestly I could care less because they all spit the same clichés and talk for five minutes without saying anything.

What does bother me is his tough guy attitude with the media and his intimidation. You’re not a tough guy. You’re a hockey coach. You wear a suit to work. Stop trying to act like you’re a professional wrestler.

And what’s bothered me is that he’s imposed his style on that team so much in a “my way or the highway” kind of way, and I’ve never been convinced he has enough cachet for that to be justified. Yeah, he won the Stanley Cup, but that was with Marty St. Louis and Vincent Lecavalier in their primes, Brad Richards emerging as a star and the NHL screwing the Flames out of winning the whole damn thing in Game 6 when Marty Gelinas and the Flames were robbed of the Cup-winning goal.

I’m not completely anti-Massachusetts coaches, though. Give me Peter Laviolette any day of the week.

Keefe: We rarely agree on anything, but the one thing we can agree on is the inconsistent job done by Brendan Shanahan throughout the season.

Shanahan started out so strong and promising by throwing the book at everyone who even attempted a borderline illegal hit, elbow or headshot. But as the season went on and owners and general managers had their way, the suspensions and punishments lessened and became more sporadic. Then it all came to a boiling point in the playoffs when Shanahan decided to dust off Colin Campbell’s dartboard and remake his cootie catcher out of some construction paper. Starting in the quarterfinals and going through the conference finals, Shanahan made a series of questionable decisions based on whether or not a player was injured from the incident.

It’s hard to find anyone over the last few seasons that has written more words about illegal and borderline illegal hits in the league than you. For someone who didn’t want Colin Campbell to be the judge for the NHL any longer and was initially excited about the job Shanahan was doing, what is your evaluation of Shanahan after one year?

Hurley: I’ve always felt my calling in life was to work at the league office in Toronto, sit in front of 12 TV screens with a dozen glazed donuts and an extra-large coffee and watch hockey games. When refs had trouble determining whether a puck crossed a line or not, or whether it was kicked in, they’d call me. I’d answer the phone and say, “Hey, Billy. Yah, dat’s a goal.” (I’d talk like a Canadian out of respect for the game.) Other times I’d say, “Ay Jahnny. How’re da wife and kids? Good. Well ahh yah! No goal. See ya, Jahnny.”

(Excuse me while I weep for a moment while realizing I’ll never get that job. … … … OK. I’ve regrouped.)

But now I think maybe my real calling in life is to determine suspensions in the NHL. I was all aboard the Shanahan Express in the preseason, when he was just banishing guys with reckless abandon and created the nickname “Shanahammer” for himself. Some of the punishments were overboard, but I always contested during the Colin Campbell era that it made ZERO sense to err on the side of NOT suspending someone. I’d much rather see an overly harsh punishment than no punishment at all. I look at Matt Cooke ending Marc Savard’s career and getting nothing for it, and I look at Zdeno Chara going out of his way to deliver a late shot on Max Pacioretty, and I don’t understand how neither player received so much as a slap on the wrist. If we were living in the Roman Empire and we enjoyed going to the Coliseum to watch beasts and men alike be slayed before our eyes, then fine, but in modern society, violent actions that break rules need to be punished. So Shanahan was doing a good job.

But as you mentioned, the owners didn’t like their players missing for long periods of time, and the Shanahammer became more like Shanapansy. He was too afraid to suspend players. He did what he was told. He was just more of the same.

In the playoffs, I don’t think any of his suspensions were too awful (I know you hated the Carl Hagelin suspension, but while it was a little lengthy, a suspension was warranted), but he was still too scared to suspend star players (with the exception of Nicklas Backstrom and Claude Giroux).

I was actually thinking of Shanahan the other night when Gary Bettman was on the ice to present the Conn Smythe and the Cup and there weren’t enough L.A. fans who follow hockey closely enough to know that they were supposed to be booing Bettman. He had that patented Bettman smugness painted on his face, and I was thinking about how much he enjoyed Shanahan serving as the punching bag of NHL fans all year long. I feel Shanahan was duped into the job, was told he could truly be the sheriff of the NHL, only to be neutered once the real season began.

Bottom line: Shanahan is a tremendous improvement over Campbell, but until the league actually gets serious about player safety rather than mostly just paying lip service to it, then we’ll always have problems with the decisions made after hits that can easily be wiped out of the game.

(My favorite anecdote about the lack of seriousness regarding player safety is that the Bruins’ team doctor has stated publicly multiple times that it can’t be medically proven that Marc Savard’s concussion suffered on the Cooke hit had anything to do with his concussion the following year that came in a routine collision with Matt Hunwick, who weighs 135 pounds soaking wet. A real life, team-employed doctor told reporters this information as fact, with a straight face. Just a coincidence then, eh, doc?)

Keefe: I thought about ending this conversation with some points about your 2012 Boston Red Sox, but I figured everything has been going pretty well, so why make you cry again? I don’t think there’s anything I can say that will make any Red Sox feel worse about watching their team in 2012 than they already do. We’ll have plenty of time to talk Yankees-Red Sox when the two teams meet at Fenway the first weekend in July. Maybe I will even think about going to a game with you since the tickets should be down to about $2.50 then. (Don’t tell Red Sox Executive Vice President and COO Sam Kennedy I said that.)

Hurley: The Red Sox do not make me cry. They make me laugh. They have a bazillion dollar payroll but they’re making decisions like keeping Scott Podsednik and Daniel Nava over Marlon Byrd. Tickets at $2.50 are actually considered a little pricey now. We could probably get some for $1.25 by July. I’ll go to the game with you, just as long as we sit at least 20 rows apart so I don’t have to look at your stupid face or hear the stupid things that come out of your stupid mouth. Deal.

 

Read More