fbpx

Tag: Brad Richards

Blogs • Rangers

Dec 16, 2013

Searching for Two Points

As of Sunday, it had been 10 days since the Rangers picked up two points and a win, so it felt like the right time to do a Retro Recap of the third period against the Flames.

It’s been 10 days since the Rangers earned two points. In that time they have played four games, earning just one point and allowing four goals in all four games. What makes it even worse is that in the four games, the Rangers scored just seven goals with three of them coming in one game (Dec. 7 vs. New Jersey) and to make it even worse than that, all four games were at home and to make it even worse that that, Henrik Lundqvist started all four games. The Rangers’ high-water mark of the season has been one game over .500. They have achieved that six times this season, but have managed to fall back to .500 following each win to bring them over .500 (with the exception of that Dec. 7 shootout loss to the Devils, which made them 15-14-1).

With 33 games gone (40 percent of the season), the Rangers found themselves in seventh place in the Metropolitan Division and 13th place in the Eastern Conference entering Sunday’s game against the Flames at Madison Square Garden. And then 15 minutes into the game against the Flames, they found themselves trailing 2-0, marking the third straight game they trailed by at least two goals before finding the back of the net. But Derek Stepan would score with 4:35 left in the first (his first goal in 10 games) and Carl Hagelin would tie it at 2 at 7:29 of the the second period, which is the way it would stay through the second. And that’s where we pick things up in this Retro Recap.

THIRD PERIOD

20:00: The Rangers fought back to tie the game at 2 and now they will try to successfully complete a comeback by winning the third period or winning in overtime or a shootout. It’s been 10 days since the Rangers’ last win, but it feels like it’s been a month. That win came over Buffalo on Dec. 5, which probably shouldn’t even count for two points this season, considering Buffalo has an NHL-worst 17 points.

As they always do, Swedish House Mafia takes us to the opening faceoff of the period with “Save The World,” which asks, “Who’s gonna save the world tonight?” It’s probably going to have to be Henrik Lundqvist and it should be since he hasn’t done anything worthy of a king since signing his extension on Dec. 4, going just 1-3-1 since then.

John Giannone is doing the play-by-play with Sam Rosen in Atlanta today calling the Falcons-Redskins game for FOX. When my girlfriend heard Sam’s voice earlier in the day and put two and two together that it was the same voice she hears during Rangers games, her face lit up as if a light went off in her head and she looked like a little kid seeing and hearing Tim Allen in The Santa Claus and realizing that guy who turns into Santa is also the voice of Buzz Lightyear.

17:32: It’s been a slow two and a half minutes to open the period with not much happening for either team. The puck just hit Derick Brassard in the middle of a line change near the Rangers bench, which drew a whistle, but not a too-many-men-on-the-ice penalty, which the ref then had to explain to both benches to delay the game. That’s all the action we have seen so far in the third.

16:42: The Rangers lead 19-14 in shots, which isn’t good for Lundqvist’s save percentage. AV has Carl Hagelin playing with Brian Boyle, which completely cancels out Hagelin’s speed. Why would you want Hagelin and Boyle on the same line? You wouldn’t.

15:16: The Flames score. Anton Stralman and Mats Zuccarello both get beat in the corner (with Zuccarello falling down) and then Derick Brassard gets beat to the net by Sean Monahan as Curtis Glencross finds Monahan and he gets one past Lundqvist. Another odd, bad goal scored against Lundqvist and the Rangers will have to come back again.

14:03: Usually these Retro Recaps work. Actually I think they pretty much always work. Whether it’s the Rangers needing a win, the New York Football Giants needing to win the 2011 NFC Championship Game or Phil Hughes needing to pitch a gem, whenever I do a Retro Recap for a game, it turns out to be for the best. Just thought I would throw this fact out there now, while there’s still 14 minutes for the Rangers to tie it.

13:36: Michael Del Zotto rips a shot from the point into some Calgary shin pads the way that only Michael Del Zotto can and the puck comes out of the zone. Just when it looked like Del Zotto was playing his way out of the lineup for good and possibly out of the organization, he had to go and score that goal against Vancouver in his first game back following two consecutive healthy scratches and five of eight healthy scratches.

12:37: Chris Kreider receives a long pass as he streaks down the left side and lets a slap shot go from just inside the blue as the crowd gets up and excited for the first time in the third period. It’s never a good sign when you’re trailing by one goal, not generating any offense and the crowd is creating artificial excitement off a low-percentage shot on a 1-on-1.

10:34: Since I already touched on putting Hagelin and Boyle on the same line, let’s talk about the idea of pairing Del Zotto with Dan Girardi. Is this real life? You’re going to put the worst defenseman on the team with the second-worst defenseman on the team? When I wrote that last sentence/question I meant for Del Zotto to be “the worst defenseman on the team” and for Girardi to be “the second-worst defenseman” on the team, but then I realized they interchangeable and could be classified as either.

We know that Del Zotto serves limited purpose since he isn’t a defensive defenseman and hasn’t evolved in the offensive defenseman we thought he might turn out to be. So he’s now just a defensive liability who doesn’t do enough in his own zone to be worthy of playing time and doesn’t score enough to be worthy of playing time, but he’s still getting playing time and plenty of it. Remember when the supposed strong, young defensive core was the future of the Rangers? (Crickets … crickets … crickets.)

As for Girardi, I hope I don’t hear anyone mention the need to extend him between now and the end of the season. He scored his second goal of the season for the Rangers on Thursday night, but he has a long ways to go to make up for the 15 goals he has scored against Henrik Lundqvist this season.

And the best part about this defensive pair is their inability to hit the net with any shot from the point. They are the opponent’s best breakout strategy.

10:12: Dylan McIlrath gets his stick up on Mike Cammalleri on the way to the corner after Cammalleri initiated contact with McIlrath to position himself in a way that would avoid him getting destroyed along the boards. McIlrath gets called for high-sticking and the Flames have a chance to put this game away.

9:45: A whistle on the power play and we’re reminded that coming up is the “Foxwoods Final Five,” which is when Foxwoods sponsors the final five minutes of the game. In December, the Rangers have played six games and have lost five of them and have been trailing by at least two goals for the final five minutes of the five losses. Is anyone even watching the final five minutes of Rangers games? Wouldn’t Foxwoods be better off sponsoring the first five minutes of the game?

8:12: The Rangers kill off McIlrath’s penalty as the Flames aren’t able to put together or set up anything in the Rangers’ zone. It looked like what I imagine the Rangers’ power play against the Rangers’ penalty kill looks like at practice.

8:02: With just three shots so far in the period, Joe Micheletti says, “The Rangers need shots.” Thank you, Joe. Here I was thinking there would be another way for them to tie this game.

7:53: The Rangers score! Derek Stepan makes a nice move near the bottom of the left circle and gets the puck to the front of the net where Kreider is to put it home. And how exactly did the Rangers score? With a shot on net, of course. Joe Micheletti, you genius you!

4:58: There was a TV timeout with 6:44 left and since then it’s been all Calgary as the Rangers are having a tough time clearing the zone and getting a chance. It feels like a Flames goal is coming any second now and probably will before I finish writing this.

4:33: And the puck is finally out of the zone.

3:56: Cammalleri gets called for roughing, which is some nice payback after he drew the penalty earlier against McIlrath.

3:16: Rick Nash makes a nice move along the goal line and with the puck in the air headed toward Karri Ramo, Ramo paddles it out of the air and it goes over the glass for a delay of game penalty. It’s going to be a 5-on-3 for the Rangers for 1:20. Flames head coach Bob Hartley looks like he just got back to his car in the parking lot of a grocery store only to find a note on it that says, “Sorry, I hit your car. I picked up your bumper and put it on top of your trunk. I was in a hurry and had to go and you weren’t around. Here’s my number.”

2:44: The power play unit is Nash, Stepan, Kreider, Brad Richards and Ryan McDonagh. In other words: only people that should be playing on the power play.

1:56: Kreider gets called for high-sticking in front of the net on the power play and it’s going to be a double minor. What a terrible turn of events. From a 5-on-4 to a 5-on-3 to now 4-4 to then being down 5-on-4 for the rest of the third and then 4-on-3 in overtime.

Guns N’ Roses’ “Nighttrain” is now playing at the Garden, so maybe everything will be fine.

0:00: That will do it for the third. We’re headed to overtime. One point for the Rangers, but getting one point once every four games isn’t going to cut it.

OVERTIME

5:00: The Flames start overtime with a 4-on-3 advantage and the Rangers have Boyle, Girardi and McDonagh on the ice. Over/under 45 seconds until this game is over? If you want to use Boyle to kill penalties during regulation, I get it. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. But when you’re using him in overtime to kill penalties and to kill a 4-on-3, well that’s just irresponsible. He is no way the best forward on the team suited for this role

4:23: A huge save by Lundqvist in front on Glencross, which momentarily saves the game for the Rangers. 30 big save on glen

3:26: Dominic Moore is now on the ice as the lone forward in the 4-on-3 and McDonagh is still on the ice, having played all of overtime so far.

2:56: Kreider’s penaty is killed off and I lost that under bet from earlier too.

2:16: Del Zotto sends a nice, long flip pass across the ice to lead Kreider, but it’s too hard to handle for Kreider to turn into a breakaway and he gets stopped. “Sandstorm” now blaring at MSG. With this soundtrack, how can the Rangers lose?

:40: Kreider and Del Zotto have a 2-on-1 chance, but with the puck bouncing on the ice, Kreider can’t handle it and the play is broken up.

0:00: That will do it for overtime. We’re headed for a shootout.

SHOOTOUT

Rangers: Mats Zuccarello starts things off by fooling everyone in the world. Instead of his patented move that has led him to a 50 perecent career success rate in shootouts, he comes down the right side and cuts into the middle moving slowly like usual, but then just snaps a shot off top tit on Ramo. 1-0 Rangers.

Flames: Former Bruin and lanky fourth-liner Joe Colborne comes down and somehow dekes Lundqvist to tie the shootout at 1.

Rangers: Nash makes a nice moves, but at the end when he tries to slide it in just inside the post on his forehand, Ramo’s right pad is there to stop it. If Nash had lifted the puck, it’s an easy goal.

Flames: Jiri Hudler gets stoned by Lundqvist

Rangers: Stepan can’t score.

Flames: Lundqvist stops Monahan.

Rangers: Richards comes flying down and wrists one medium tit or maybe three-quarters tit on Ramo. 2-1 Rangers and with a Lundqvist save, it’s over.

Flames: Lee Stempniak loses the puck and regains it in time to backhand one on the ice through Lundqvist’s legs as he moves right to left. We’re tied again.

Rangers: Brassard gets stopped.

Flames: I thought Cammalleri would end it, but he can’t.

Rangers: Dominic Moore rips one from the slot to the left side to give the Rangers a 3-2 shootout lead and a chance for Lundqvist to close it out again.

Flames: Lundqvist wants to see how long this Retro Recap can be as Paul Byron scores on him to tie it again.

Rangers: Benoit Pouliot goes to Nash’s one-hand move and gets the puck past Ramo with ease. Out of all the times I have seen the move done, never before has it pulled a goalie so far to one side, leaving basically an entire half of the net for Pouliot to slide it in. Come on, Lundqvist.

Flames: Lundqvist closes it out by stopping Mikael Backlund and looks tired and worn out doing so after raising his arms to the Garden rafters in triumph.

It wasn’t easy and it wasn’t pretty and it wasn’t against a good team, but a win’s a win. After 65 minutes of play and seven shootout rounds, the Rangers have their two points. They earned them.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Oct 11, 2013

The Rangers’ West Coast Embarrassment Tour

The Rangers were embarrassed in San Jose and then again in Anaheim and the Alain Vigneault era looks no different than the John Tortorella era after four games.

It’s Day 12 of the Yankees’ offseason. The Giants’ season was officially (yes, finally) ended last night in Chicago. That means between now and April 1 the only thing I have left is the Rangers’ season, but with the way that’s going there’s a good chance I will have to turn my interests to the NBA or college basketball or curling or maybe start reading more or finally learn how to cook more than just-add-water pancakes and pasta.

Game 1 in Phoenix was a letdown after 131 days without Rangers hockey and it being Opening Night and the opponent being the Coyotes, whose big offseason signing was Mike Ribeiro.

Game 2 was what I expected from the 2013-14 Rangers with an impressive 3-1 win over the Kings (even if the third goal was in the Tuukka Rask tier of gift goals).

Game 3 in San Jose was a disaster, not only because the final score was 9-2, but because the Rangers led 3:27 into the game on a power-play goal (yes, those exist) and under five minutes later were trailing 2-1 as part of a six-unanswered-goal barrage. Even in this defeat you could chalk it up as an early-season loss on the West Coast as part of this season-opening road trip that is more like a rock band’s tour than a professional sports team’s road trip with the length of it. You could make the case that the Rangers were tired after playing in Los Angeles the night before and then having to travel from Southern California to Northern California. But the excuses, if any are even valid or reasonable, end there.

Then there’s Thursday night in Anaheim. What the eff was that? Seriously, what the eff was that? I could just go the route Ryan Callahan did in explaining what happened, starting with the first period, when he said, “I don’t have an explanation for you,” but let’s try to explain it and let’s try to explain what has gone wrong during the first four games of the season. And let’s use Alain Vigneault’s postgame to try to explain it.

On if there are any signs of improvement.

“It’s tough to say there were signs of improvement in a 6-0 loss, that being said though, I thought tonight we tried until the end. Obviously we’re not playing very well right now and there are probably a lot of theories out there as to why we’re not playing the way we should be playing, but our reality is really quite simple. We’re going to get up tomorrow morning and we’re going to go back to work. We’re going to work ourselves into the team that I believe we can be, which is a smart-working, hard-working hockey team that can make plays and right now we’re having tough times making plays with puck.”

Vigneault started this answered by stumbling around for the right words to begin his answer before using “that being said” which will always make me think of Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld’s “having said that” exchange in Curb Your Enthusiasm.

“Trying until the end” isn’t going to cut it for this team (and shouldn’t cut it for any team). There’s no need to always try to find some positive out of an embarrassing effort. Not everything needs to have some silver lining and a 6-0 loss two nights after a 9-2 loss certainly doesn’t.

On whether the team has no confidence.

“That’s always the word that’s thrown out there. We’re being tested as a team, as a group. We’re being challenged and it’s up to me as the head coach to get this team to play well.”

This is actually a bit of fresh air. In the John Tortorella postgame days, Tortorella would tell the media to go ask his players why they sucked or he would ask the media if they had asked his players the same questions since they were the only ones that had to answer for losses. Tortorella never took blame for the team’s struggles and was always quick to point the fingers at his players, including his star goal scorers, who he sacrificed as shot blockers.

Tortorella’s ability to pretend like nothing is his fault traveled with him to Vancouver where he recently said he isn’t sure what happened to his relationship with Brad Richards. Other than demoting him to the fourth line and then scratching him in the playoffs and citing his style of play not being that of a fourth-liner (real life?), I’m not sure why their relationship would be fractured. If I were Richards, I would be saving every puck from every goal scored this season and then writing the goal number on the puck using whiteout and then mailing them to Tortorella. After some quick research, it appears this would be the mailing address for Tortorella in Vancouver:

Vancouver Canucks
Attn: John Tortorella
800 Griffiths Way
Vancouver, BC V6B 6G1
Canada

On if it’s difficult to believe the team is actually the team that won in Los Angeles.

“I would say San Jose, you guys all saw it. The effort wash very good. I thought tonight our guys tried, but we’re not playing very well right now. We’re not making plays. Same outcome, but two different levels of competing in my opinion.”

Whaaaaaaaaaaatttttt?!?!?!?! I’m going to have to disagree with AV on this one. Did AV watch the same Rangers-Sharks game that I did or did MSG show a different game on Tuesday night? In the Rangers-Sharks that MSG aired for me, I saw a Rangers team that was outshot 47-20, looked to be shorthand the entire game, gave up odd-man rushes without a care and were eventually run out of the building with Tomas Hertl’s goal on Martin Biron (who I hope drank at least 12 beers during the game).

Henrik Lundqvist is 1-3-0 with a 4.31 GAA and .879 SV% and has been pulled once already. Those aren’t exactly Lundqvist-esque numbers, but the defense has failed him and the offense (or the lack of offense) might once again be a problem this season. Isn’t it great that eight days ago Lundqvist ended talks with the Rangers on an extension sine they couldn’t come to terms before the season? How many Stanley Cups are the Penguins going to win starting in 2014-15 with Lundqvist as their goalie? I would say at least five in a row starting next season.

On his theory for the struggles.

“My theory is reality. Our reality is we got to get up tomorrow morning, put our work boots on, come to the rink, have a good practice, watch some video, look at the areas that we need to improve and that’s what the coaching staff is going to do tomorrow. And the players are going to get up, put their skates on and work hard.”

If your theory is reality then you should have said, “My theory is reality. Our reality is we suck.” Because right now the Rangers suck. They have been outscored 20-6 in the first four games, the scoring production is the same it was last season and throughout the Tortorella era, but now there’s no longer a defense to balance out the lack of scoring.

I keep hearing about how great and solid a defenseman Dan Girardi is and how the Rangers need to extend Lundqvist while keeping enough space available to re-sign him. (This is the same Girardi who was basically a pylon against the Bruins in the conference semifinals.) I’m not even sure the Rangers should re-sign Girardi this offseason and it blows my mind that the Rangers would extend Lundqvist with Girardi in mind and that Girardi could somehow affect whether Lundqvist stays or not because of finances. (Hey there, don’t include Eduardo Nunez in a deal for Cliff Lee!) And how about Girardi suggesting that the Rangers go back to the way they played the last few years? You know, the way they played under the coach that they got fired?

I could easily pick apart the entire defense like Mitch in Waiting… going around the room and trashing every restaurant employee, but I won’t. Instead I’ll just go with Michael Del Zotto the way Mitch takes down Floyd (Dane Cook’s character).

This is Michael Del Zotto’s fifth season in the NHL. In his first season as a 19-year-old, who put up 9-28-37 in 80 games (despite a minus-20) it had many thinking he could be the future face of the franchise, a premier offensive defenseman and a staple on the blue line for possibly two decades. But the following season he fell out of Tortorella’s graces and spent time in the AHL before returning with 10-31-41 and a plus-20 rating in 2011-12. Last season Del Zotto was back to his 2010-11 ways, which is most likely who he is and who he is going to be. He isn’t going to be the captain of the power play that some people have envisioned him as when he thinks that he deserves to shoot the puck in any any situation with Rick Nash, Brad Richards and Derek Stepan also on the ice (Dan Girardi has this problem when he’s out there on the power play) and when he does choose to shoot, he usually misses the net and is the best breakout strategy for any opponent (Dan Girardi also has this problem). Del Zotto is careless with the puck, makes incredibly poor choices in his own zone and unbelievable mistakes in the transition game in the neutral zone. He doesn’t score enough to not care about his defense the way Sergi Gonchar has for his entire career and because of this doesn’t deserve the ice time he receives. But like Brian Boyle, I have to accept that Michael Del Zotto isn’t going anywhere ever.

On if he can simplify the game while the team learns his system.

“The execution making a tape-to-tape pass has nothing to do with systems. Coming through the neutral zone and reading the other teams pressure and gap and reading the play with the puck has nothing to do with the system. Those are all things that these players have done their whole lives and I’m confident they can still do.”

Well, if the Rangers can’t even perform the basics of hockey, let alone learn and get down an offensive system then what’s the point?

You know what I would think the Rangers have done their who lives other than the absolute basics? I would think they would have understood the need to stick up for teammates on the ice, especially if your teammate happens to be your team’s best player.

Rick Nash wasn’t part of the debacles in San Jose (other than for two minutes and 32 seconds ) or in Anaheim and won’t play in St. Louis. While the team is touring the Western Conference, Nash is in New York because Brad Stuart doesn’t know how to properly check someone. Nash’s head injury is his second in under a year with the Rangers and maybe Nash returns after the Blues game or after next week or maybe after October or November or maybe never? Who knows with head injuries when any player is going to return, if at all, and if they do, will they even be the same player once they do?

Maybe the Rangers missed Nash fighting Martin Hanzel in Phoenix last Thursday to stand up for Derek Stepan the way I must have missed the Rangers-Sharks game that AV watched. But I know they didn’t miss it since after the game, Ryan McDonagh and Dominic Moore both spoke out about how it’s good to see Nash mix it up and how the team trusts each other and sticks up for each other. But where was the “team” when Stuart was earning a three-game suspension for an elbow to Nash’s head? Nowhere.

On if the road trip and travel is a reason for the losses.

“Not at all. This is normal travel. I have done this all my life. Travel’s been fine.”

That’s nice that the travel has been fine since that’s the only thing that has been.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Jun 21, 2013

Retro Recap of Alain Vigneault’s Introductory Press Conference

The Rangers introduced Alain Vigneault as the 35th head coach in team history leading to a Retro Recap of the press conference.

Sam Rosen had more enthusiasm than usual while opening the press conference to introduce Alain Vigneault as head coach of the Rangers. It’s been a while since Rosen could talk and act positively around a Rangers head coach with John Tortorella making Rosen the team’s media scapegoat during the 2012-13 season, but on Friday at Radio City, Rosen could be himself with Tortorella long gone.

The press conference didn’t last long and nothing of any real importance was said during it. James Dolan talked and no one listened. Glen Sather talked and told us about the latest personnel decision he had made after firing another failed coach that he had hired. Alain Vigneault talked and gave us a little perspective into who he is and the type of person he will be. The media asked questions. Vigneault answered them. Sather answered a few. Vigneault answered a few more. And then the press conference was over. It went exactly the way a press conference for a new head coach who has coached zero games for his new employer and knows little to no one on the roster personally could go. But that didn’t stop me from taking notes during it for a Retro Recap.

***

James Dolan starts the press conference by saying, “I want to say thanks to John Tortorella, he served us well,” (served us well?) to immediately bring back the bad taste in everyone’s mouth that Tortorella left with the Rangers’ second-round embarrassment. Thanks Jim!

Dolan bumbles around his words and the podium like an entitled rich, spoiled brat who should be doing anything in life other than owning the Rangers (and Knicks). He reads his opening remarks off either notecards or a piece of paper like a fourth grader running for student council without ever promising to extend recess or put candy and soda vending machines in the cafeteria. But Dolan says, “Winning a championship is the Rangers’ first and only goal” (though he could have left the words “first and” if it truly is their “only” goal), so he at least tried to endear himself to Ranger fans like a Steinbrenner.

Dolan continues to ramble on while Train’s “Hey, Soul Sister” plays at a soft, but irritating level like a light drizzle in the background. I have now minimized the press conference seven times searching for the autoplay ad playing the song on my computer only to realize someone effed up streaming the video online and the song here is to stay until they notice.

Hey, soul sister
Ain’t that mister mister
On the radio, stereo

Dolan continues on and mentions Vigneault’s “success” (we’ll get to the usage of that word later) during his time in Vancouver, referring to the Canucks as the “Canooks.” What’s the chance Dolan can name one player on the Canucks whose last name isn’t Sedin? The answer is 0 percent chance. Dolan says Vigneault “knows how to get the best performance out of the entire roster.” The same roster he couldn’t name a non-Sedin on. I feel like he googled “nice cliches to say about a sports coach” and added it to his student council speech this morning.

Hey, soul sister
I don’t wanna miss
A single thing you do
Tonight

Dolan’s time ends without him giving us anything that will become a YouTube sensation and without giving the Daily News or Post anything like his lollipop-eating antics from MSG. So far, a successful morning for Jim.

Next up, Glen Sather.

If you thought this day would be about Vigneault, think again! Sather brings back the bad taste just when you thought the throwup that you swallowed after it came up in your mouth had settled, there it is again.

“I also would like thank John Tortorella for the work he did here,” Sather says. Eff it! Let’s all thank John Tortorella today! Let’s just bring him out on the stage and sit him right next to Vigneault!

Sather rambles on (without notes!) about how impressed he is by Vigneault and what he will do for the Rangers for the next five years (so, I guess it was a five-year deal).

“Alain likes to be called ‘AV,’ so I’m going to call him ‘AV.'” Umm, OK? Sather also makes it clear that everyone can call him “AV.” So I now have permission to call him AV. However, he doesn’t have permission to call me NK.

I’m not going put quotations around AV anymore since that’s his name now. He asked for it.

When speaking about why AV was chosen as the 35th head coach in Rangers history, Sather talks about how he wanted an offensive-minded coach and says, “The game has changed a little bit in the last three to four years.” Wait, what? Sather knew three to four years ago that the game changed? He hired John Tortorella four years ago. Tortorella’s system/approach/style has nothing to do with offense and everything to do with blocking shots, dumping and chasing and forcing skilled scorers to muck it up in the corners. Only Sather could admit to hiring and extending a coach, who is wrong for the team and the time, without actually admitting it. Ladies and gentlemen, Glen Sather!

Here’s the 35th head coach of the New York Rangers for at least the next five years, or possibly longer if he wins, or possibly shorter if he loses.

Vigneault starts by making a promise he might regret later. “I don’t intend to let them (Dolan and Sather) down.” You want might want to slow down there Vigneault. If Dolan said the Rangers’ only goal is to win a championship and he just hired you to win that championship and you just said you won’t let him down, well you basically just guaranteed to win the Stanley Cup in your first sentence as Rangers head coach.

“I’m coming here to win,” Vigneault says, “And there’s no doubt in my mind that this is organization is committed to winning the Stanley Cup.” (For reference: he pronounced it or-gan-eye-za-tion like a good Canadian.)

Vigneault talks about walking around the Rangers practice facility and looking at the pictures from the last time the Rangers won the Cup and I can’t help but think if those pictures are in black and white. Did pictures have color in 1994?

“It’s real clear to me there’s no better place to win the Stanley Cup than here in New York.”

Now that we have the guarantees and reckless predictions out of the way that come with every new hire press conference, it’s time for questions from the media.

The first question goes to Stan Fischler because who else would get to ask the new Rangers head coach a question other than Fischler, who predicted the Rangers over the Bruins in 5 and tweeted “If Boston wins series, I will eat beans for a week.” (How were those beans, Stan?)

Fischler doesn’t ask his usual nonsensical questioning, but instead tries to be a real reporter (or whatever he is) and asks, “Can you define your philosophy of the game? How is it going to be different from John Tortorella? What is AV’s coaching like?”

It took Fischler four seconds to use AV for the first time since being given permission from Sather to do so. But instead of having Vigneault talk down to Fischler in a tone that makes everyone other than Fischler aware at how unnecessary his question is like Tortorella would do, Vigneault actually gives him a reasonable and respectful answer.

“I like my teams to play the right way,” Vigneault says before going on to talk about how he wants his offensive players to be creative. “If you have space and time to carry the puck, carry the puck.”

Let me get this right. There are coaches who actually encourage their talented offensive players to create things on the ice? There are coaches who don’t want players like Rick Nash and Marian Gaborik to bang bodies in the corners? Is this real life?

“Offensive players have to be given the latitude to make something out of nothing.”

I’m starting to feel the way I did on that July morning in 2010 when I woke up to Cliff Lee being traded to the Yankees. Is David Adams going to ruin this for me too?

AV is saying all the right things and making me believe in him to the point that I don’t care that Sather passed over Messier and probably ruined the relationship between Messier and the Rangers. If AV says he can fix the power play, I will be buying a Brian Boyle jersey at the conclusion of this press conference.

Sather is asked if the job came down to AV (I think I’m only going to refer to him as that from now … I think I have to) and Mark Messier?

“We had a list of 13 candidates and I narrowed it down to nine,” Sather says. “I interviewed two in person and four over the phone. But no, it wasn’t just between AV and Mark.”

OK, we know that AV and Messier were candidates. I’m pretty sure Lindy Ruff was in there too. So that’s three. So who were the 10 other candidates? Let’s figure it out.

1. Wayne Gretzky – “The Great One” had to be one of the 13 after being rumored to be interested in the job and being such close friends with Sather even if Sather didn’t stop Peter Pocklington from trading Gretzky to Los Angeles. There’s no doubt in my mind that Sather could have prevented that trade if he wanted to and his supposed threatening to resign was likely fake.

2. Guy Boucher – He did a good job in Tampa Bay when you consider his goalies were Anders Lindback and Mathieu Garon. He deserves another chance somewhere when you think about some of the coaches in the league who have been given numerous opportunities with less ability.

3. Mike Sullivan – Vigneault mentioned how he talked with Sullivan at the practice facility. Was Sullivan driving the Zamboni or working at the snackbar? Wait, he’s still with the organization? I actually like Sullivan and think he would make a good head coach at some point again, but can you really keep on Tortorella’s right-hand man from the past few seasons? I don’t think you can.

4. John Tortorella – Would anyone be surprised if Sather fired Tortorella only to rehire him and sign him to an even longer-term deal? This is the GM who has one conference finals appearance as his “success” in New York over 12 seasons we’re talking about here. Since I started writing this, John Tortorella was hired by the Vancouver Canucks. If they rioted for losing the Stanley Cup, what are they going to do for this? Just burn the city to the ground?

5. Tom Renney – Renney is an assistant with the Red Wings now, but maybe Sather realized he messed up when he got rid of Renney in the first place for Tortorella because of Tortorella’s misleading 2003-04 Cup in Tampa Bay?

6. Mike Keenan – Keenan was a lot like Tortorella and there’s a good chance the 1993-94 Rangers would have won the Cup without him and probably would have won it in easier fashion. But Keenan has been able to hang around the organization and MSG Network for quite some time. Good luck in the KHL.

7. Pierre McGuire – McGuire hasn’t been a head coach since 1993-94 with the Whalers, his only stint as a head coach in the league. But you know that McGuire thinks he is capable of returning to lead a team because he can rattle off any player’s hometown, local youth hockey program, junior team, home phone number and Social Security number at will. What? You wouldn’t want McGuire getting the Rangers fired up by telling them to “Enjoy themselves!” and to “Go have some fun!” minutes before a game?

8. Pat Leonard – John Tortorella told the Daily News beat writer to “stop coaching” when he asked Tortorella a reasonable question last season, which technically meant that Leonard was coaching. So maybe Sather took notice and thought about going a different route with his decision.

9. Bryan Trottier – Brian Cashman didn’t think Javier Vazquez’s miserable second half in 2004 and a certain Game 7 disaster were enough to not bring him back for a second time. So why would Sather not bring back the man he gave his first coaching job to and who went 21-26-6-1 (remember when the NHL decided to have four categories in the standings thinking it would be a good idea?) before being fired and replaced by the next man on this list…

10. Glen Sather – The man himself. Why would Sather make himself head coach of the Rangers … again? (He coached 90 games combined over the 2002-03 season and 2003-04 season.) Better question: Why wouldn’t he? Nothing Sather has done during his time as GM when it comes to selecting a head coach has made a whole lot of sense, so why would this?

But Sather chose Vigneault despite these 12 candidates and chose him while every free-agent coach had the Rangers at the top of their list. Sather could have had any coach in the world and he chose Vigneault. That tells us that either Vigneault was the best possible candidate or that Sather still doesn’t know how to correctly pick a head coach. I’m hoping it’s the former, but history tells us that the latter is the more likely option according to statistics.

Back to the press conference…

I just realized “Hey, Soul Sister” stopped playing.

“It’s an Original 6,” Vigneault says about the Rangers. “It’s got a chance to win. It’s one of the elite teams in my opinion in the NHL.”

“It’s?” Are the Rangers a horse? An elite team? Sure, they made the conference semifinals and were essentially a Top 8 team this season and reached the conference finals a year ago and were essentially a Top 4 team then, but elite? Hmm, I’m not sure after the way the Bruins series went if we can call the Rangers elite right now. Let’s call them a “good” team for now.

Vigneault makes a joke about getting hired by saying, “I did find out it’s a lot easier to negotiate a contract when you got two teams after you instead of just one.” Sather doesn’t like this and tries to joke back. Dolan really doesn’t like this and throws his lollipop in the trash.

Why does AV think he was fired by the Canucks?

“Well that’s a question you should ask them,” Vigneault says. “I do want to say though that I enjoyed my time in Vancouver.”

Here’s the real answer why he was fired, which could save you time if you were planning on asking the Canucks like AV instructed: AV was fired because he didn’t win the Cup. He won five division titles, two Presidents Trophies and lost in the 2010-11 Final, but he never won it all and that’s why he was fired (this is the “success” part I said we would talk about later and there’s a reason “success” has quotations around). Pretty straightforward.

Someone asks Glen Sather whether he expects either Mark Messier or Brad Richards to be part of the organization next season.

“I don’t think this is an appropriate place to talk about player decisions,” Sather says. “It’s a day for AV and I think we’ll stick to the coaching.”

I didn’t expect Sather to actually give a real answer to that question and the person who asked it should have realized they wouldn’t get a real answer either and they should have saved everyone time by not asking it. (Beat writers! Reporters!) I don’t think Richards will be back even though I think he should be back, but that decision has most likely already been made.

As for Messier, it’s a weird spot. How is he supposed to continue to serve as a special assistant to Sather when Sather didn’t hire him and he would have to work with AV and make decisions about AV’s team when AV was picked over him? I would have been happy with Messier as the head coach and wanted him to be the head coach, but it looks like his time with the team might end (for now) the way Don Mattingly’s did.

The press conference went about as well as it could for a coach who won’t coach his first game for a little over three months. Vigneault said all the right things and answered every question the way you would have wanted him to and maybe New York (his third head coaching job) will turn out to be what Chicago has been for Joel Quenneville (his third head coaching job) and what Boston has been for Claude Julien (his third head coaching job).

If it works out, Vigneault will lead the Rangers to their first Cup since 1994. If it doesn’t work out, well at least he’s not John Tortorella.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers • Rangers Playoff Thoughts • Rangers Playoffs

May 20, 2013

Rangers-Bruins Game 2 Thoughts: Two-Goal Lead Isn’t Worst Lead in Hockey

The Rangers were embarrassed by the Bruins in Game 2 and face another must-win situation at home on Tuesday night.

My whole life I have been told “the two-goal lead is the worst lead in hockey” and all my life I have believed this theory because I have seen it erased what seems like the majority of the time. But the time has to come for me to alter the phrase to “the two-goal lead is the worst lead in hockey unless that two-goal lead is against the Rangers.”

When the Bruins went up 4-2 just 26 seconds into the third period, I thought that maybe the Rangers would catch the Bruins taking their foot off the gas, pop in a third goal and cut the lead to one and then use the momentum change to tie the game. Maybe it was the Coors Light bringing out the optimist in me, but for me to think that scenario was even remotely possible even for a second, I’m surprised I don’t still leave milk and cookies out for Santa on Christmas Eve.

Who the eff was I kidding? The Rangers weren’t going to score a third goal, let alone a third and fourth goal and then a fifth goal, which would have been needed to win the game at the time when little did we know it was going to take six goals to beat the Bruins in Game 2. The 2012-13 Rangers have scored six goals three times in 57 games this season and they weren’t about to make it a fourth in a playoff game, on the road, against the Bruins.

The Bruins got five goals from five different players and when you’re getting goals from Torey Krug (four previous career NHL games) and Johnny Boychuk (22 previous goals in 299 regular season and playoff games combined) and Greg Campbell (one previous goal in 40 playoff games), maybe you’re not going to be beaten this spring or summer and maybe the overused and overplayed “saying” will hold true in this series.

That saying is “it’s not a series until the home team loses.” It’s a saying I have never understood, but it’s been used since the Bruins won Game 2 on Sunday and it’s a saying we will hear until the start of Game 3. And if the Rangers win Game 3, it’s a saying we will hear until Game 4 and we will keep hearing until the home team does in fact lose a game in this series. But even if the Rangers were to win Games 3 and 4 at home, according to the saying they are only going to lose Game 5 before winning Game 6 and then losing Game 7. So if the Rangers are going to lose this series next Wednesday in Game 7 in Boston, why am I even watching? I’m watching because right now the chances are slim this thing lasts until Game 7. There’s a chance this thing might not even get back to Boston for Game 5.

The Rangers were embarrassed on Sunday afternoon in Boston in a way they haven’t been embarrassed since losing to Florida 3-1 at home on March 21 in what was the worst hockey game I have ever attended. So let’s start the Thoughts off with the man responsible for the embarrassing play on the ice.

– I gave John Tortorella credit for his preparation and game plan for Game 7 against Washington, but now it’s time to take that credit back. I’m not sure how the Rangers weren’t up for Game 2 from their first shift, but they were absolutely dominated in the opening minutes and it led to a Bruins goal at just 5:28 of the game. I don’t expect the Rangers to come out that flat-footed in Game 3 at home in a must-win game, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did. Nothing should surprise anyone with this team whether it’s positive or negative because “surprise” is the one word I would use to describe Tortorella’s tenure as Rangers coach. (Did I just accidentally give him the name of his book about his Rangers years once he is eventually fired? Surprise: John Tortorella’s Unexpected Reign as Rangers Coach.)

– The Rangers tied the game at 1 when Ryan Callahan beat Dougie Hamilton (just typing his name makes me think of Pierre McGuire blushing and trying to hide his pants tent between the benches) to a loose puck that led to a breakaway. The sequence that led to Callahan skating free almost looked like Hamilton’s skates were breaking down like Forrest Gump’s leg braces. First the blades, then the TUUKs, then the rivets then the boots then the laces. The only difference is Hamilton didn’t become faster. I didn’t think there was any way any 19-year-old defenseman in the NHL could be that slow, but apparently there is. Can we get a Hamilton vs. Brian Boyle goal line-to-goal line race during warmups before Game 3?

– Rick Nash came out from wherever he had been hiding for the first eight playoff games and tied the game at 2 by going top tit. Aside from a hot goalie, the scariest thing to face in the playoffs is a confident goal scorer, which is why I didn’t feel good about the Washington series with Alexander Ovechkin entering the playoffs on such a streak and scoring in Game 1 before he started to hang and play the role of four-line bruiser rather than world-class sniper. And if Nash has his confidence back after ending his goal-less postseason then maybe we won’t watch the Rangers season end at the Garden this week.

– Henrik Lundqvist wasn’t Henrik Lundqvist on Sunday. Hell, he wasn’t even Mike Dunham. But I’m not going to get on Lundqvist because that’s just not something I’m going to do. He knows he played poorly and I know he will bounce back in Game 3 because that’s what Henrik Lundqvist does. Lundqvist never gave up five goals in 43 games during the regular season, but he gave up four goals four times and in the four games following a game in which he gave up four goals, he went 4-0 with a 1.71 GAA and .934 save percentage. So no, I’m not worried about Lundqvist.

– “I have tried to be your friend, but you will not listen to me, so you have invited this monster…” That’s what Stevie Janowski tells Kenny Powers’ gym class when they’re not supposed to watch him pitch. And that’s what I’m telling John Tortorella (power-play specialist according to Pierre McGuire) and the Rangers power play.

How can a power play go 2-for-36? That’s not a rhetorical question. That’s a real question. I want an answer. How can the power play go 2-for-36? Maybe if the writers and reporters who attend Tortorella postgame press conferences would stop having thumb parties and ask a real question rather than the nonsensical questions they actually do ask we could get an answer to this because it deserves an answer. But according to Tortorella, the power play actually wasn’t bad despite going 0-for-5 in Game 2 since he said, “Our power play was better. Our power play was better today. We didn’t score, but it was better.” I guess we’re judging special teams on how they look rather than results now. I also guess most Rangers fans judge coaching that way too.

– The Rangers could have really used Dan Girardi in the lineup on Sunday. I hope he’s able to play on Tuesday because the guy who filled in for him in Game 2, who finished the game with a minus-4 rating, can’t possibly play in Game 3.

– Michael Del Zotto isn’t an offensive defenseman. Michael Del Zotto isn’t a defensive defenseman. Michael Del Zotto is just some guy that makes terrible decisions, shoots pucks into shin pads, misses the net and is a liability in his own zone. I don’t think there’s a position for that.

– No one should be surprised when the Rangers’ fourth line gives up a goal. The line consists of an overpaid, underachieving 33-year-old former star in Brad Richards, an overrated, should-have-been-traded-last-year 22-year-old first-round pick in Chris Kreider and an actual 35-year-old fourth-line checking forward and fighter in Arron Asham. That combination certainly makes me think Textbook Playoff Fourth Line!

– Torey Krug wouldn’t be playing in this series if Dennis Seidenberg or Andrew Ference or Wade Redden were healthy. It took three defenseman to be injured at the same time for him to get into the Bruins lineup and he has two goals and an assist in two games. It’s Claude Julien getting as lucky as he did in the 2010-11 playoffs when he had to insert Tyler Seguin into the lineup against Tampa Bay and the rookie single-handedly beat the Lightning. That Claude is one great coach!

– It was nice to see Derek Dorsett show some heart and fight Shawn Thornton in the third period, but why fight when trailing 5-2 with 6:51 left? Why not start something at the beginning of the period when it’s 4-2 with 19:36 left and the game is still within reach? Rangers hockey!

It’s been eight days since the Rangers played their last game at Madison Square Garden. All three of their games at home this postseason have been must-win games and they’re 3-0 in those games. If they’re not 4-0 when I write the Game 3 Thoughts there won’t be a point to writing the Game 4 Thoughts.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers • Rangers Playoff Thoughts • Rangers Playoffs

May 9, 2013

Rangers-Capitals Game 4 Thoughts: Four More Goals?

The Rangers tied the series with the Capitals thanks to their second consecutive home win and four-goal game at Madison Square Garden.

Buy more Powerball tickets. That’s what I did after Game 4 after the tickets I already bought after Game 3. Back-to-back four-goal games from the New York Rangers after just one in the last 20 postseason games? What’s next? A hat trick from Brian Boyle in Game 5? A power-play goal from Brad Richards? A positive John Tortorella press conference? Ron Duguay wearing clothing made post-1977? At this point, with this team, expecting the unexpected is how you must prepare for each playoff game. That’s why I have no idea what will happen in Game 5. No one does.

I said before Game 4 that I would walk to Washington D.C. for Game 5 if Pierre McGuire could describe one replay without citing a player’s hometown, college team or junior team, but I forgot to keep track since I was at the bar (Local Cafe next to MSG, which is also why these Thoughts are so short) for the game and the sound wasn’t on for the entire game either, so sorry for anyone hoping to see me making my way down I-95 with a Rangers hat and backpack on.

Read More