fbpx

Tag: Chris Kreider

BlogsRangersRangers Playoffs

Why Not the Rangers?

It’s been almost 10 years since I was on the wrong side of a 3-0 comeback. But after the Game 4 win in the Stanley Cup Final, why not the Rangers?

New York Rangers vs. Los Angeles Kings

I can still hear the sound. As Ruben Sierra’s weak grounder on a 1-0 pitch from Alan Embree bounced slowly to Pokey Reese, the sound started. The sound was a compilation of 86 years of failure coming to a climax after coming back down 3-0 in the ALCS to the team that had caused many of those 86 years of failure. And that compilation of misery turned disbelief shook my 11th-floor dorm room in downtown Boston.

I sat in a folding camping chair in my room staring out the window with my friend Scanlon, the only other Yankees fan I knew and knew of in the 19-floor dorm, sitting in a folding camping chair to my left. The room was dark except for the flashing images of the 2004 Red Sox celebrating on the Yankee Stadium mound that illuminated our devastated faces while the hallway outside the room sounded as if the school had announced that tuition would be free for the entire four years of college. And outside the building on the streets of Boston, the sound, which I can only compare to what the end of the world would sound like, filled the entire city.

Three days prior I watched Kevin Millar work a leadoff walk against Number 42. Dave Roberts pinch ran for Millar, stole second and Bill Mueller singled him in and three innings after that, I watched Joe Torre think it would be a good idea to have Paul Quantrill pitch to David Ortiz. Red Sox fans let me know they weren’t dead, but I knew they were. For as overly confident as the city of Boston had suddenly become, I kept telling myself, “They have to win three more games before we win one.”

The next day I found tickets to Game 5 online for the price of basically my entire first-semester spending money I had saved working that summer. I figured, “I have a chance to watch the Yankees win the pennant in person in Boston” and that was enough for me to call my friend Jim and have him drive to Boston in record time using I-95 North as if it were The Brickyard along the way. I went to the then-Fleet Bank ATM next to the Park Street T stop, withdrew nearly all the money in my bank account and headed to Kenmore to meet some sketchy guy in an old Ford Explorer down a side street a few blocks from Fenway Park. After a Tom Gordon meltdown and five hours and 49 minutes of baseball, the Yankees lost again and I left Fenway wondering how I would buy beer until Christmas break, but when it came to baseball, I reassured myself, “They have to win two more games before we win one.”

The next night, Joe Torre decided he wouldn’t have anyone attempt to bunt against Curt Schilling on one leg and the night after that it all came crashing down. It was Terry Francona, who kept his team loose and got the Yankees on the run after Game 4, but it was Schilling’s question, “Why not us?” that got me thinking back then about the possibility of an historical collapse and got me thinking about it again this past Monday night.

The Rangers could have won Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final. They could have won Game 2. And if they were able to protect the worst lead in hockey in either game, they would have. They could have returned to New York up 2-0 in the series against the dynasty-in-the-making Kings and even if they dropped both games at MSG, they would have been going back to L.A. with the series tied at two, and a best-of-3 scenario separating them and their first Cup in 20 years. But because of the Rangers’ frustrating play with a lead, disappointing effort in the third period and inability to finish in overtime, that hypothetical perfect picture of what could have been in this year’s Final never was.

With finality for the 2013-14 Rangers’ season looming (for a third time this postseason) after Game 3, the Rangers kept talking about how the bounces weren’t going their way and had one or two gone differently, they wouldn’t be in a 3-0 hole. They were right. Well, partially right. If Dan Girardi and Martin St. Louis didn’t try to play goalie and just let Henrik Lundqvist do his job, the job he is better at doing than anyone else in the entire world, Game 3 doesn’t go the way it did. And if the puck had bounced differently for Mats Zuccarello in Game 3 or if Chris Kreider or Carl Hagelin could successfully finish a breakaway or if NHL referees penalized goalie interference when it’s actually goalie interference and not be so quick to penalize players for it when it actually isn’t, then the Rangers wouldn’t have been looking at a 3-0 hole. In the world of “if,” the Rangers would have had a series lead after Game 3. But in that same world of “if,” I would have been asking Kevin Brown to toss a bottle of champagne to me in the Fenway stands after Game 5 and I wouldn’t have spent what is now almost a decade hating Javier Vazquez.

With the Kings’ commanding 3-0 series lead, we have heard about how well their current regime constructed the 2013-14 roster as well as the roster of the last three years and how they have become the model franchise in the NHL. Jeff Carter has been praised, Justin Williams has become a hero and Drew Doughty has become a household name because of the 3-0 lead. But those conversations and that praise wouldn’t be consuming the hockey world if the Sharks could have just won one of the final four games in the first round or if the Ducks had finished them off at home in Game 7 or if the Blackhawks had done the same. But in the same world of “if,” Alex Rodriguez’s career and entire life would have been different if Fenway Park had a real wall in right field and Tony Clark’s ground-rule double didn’t become “ground-rule” and Ruben Sierra wasn’t held at third base.

In Game 4, the bounces did go the Rangers way. It was the Rangers and Benoit Pouliot scoring on a deflection and it was Jeff Carter instead of Mats Zuccarello failing to push the puck over the goal line and it was Henrik Lundqvist’s crease and Derek Stepan’s glove saving the Rangers from allowing a heartbreaking tying goal in the final minute. The Rangers played their worst game of the Stanley Cup Final in Game 4 and came away with what is their only win of the series. They were outshot 41-19 and thoroughly dominated on even strength by the Kings, who looked like were on a 60-minute power play, controlling the play and puck possession, forcing me to watch the clock tick down slower than Mark Teixeira trying to score from first on a ball in the gap.

After the game, Henrik Lundqvist said, “We didn’t want to see the Cup coming out on our home ice,” as if the Rangers used that idea as their motivation to win. And maybe they did use it, but it was an odd thing to say considering how bad the Rangers played and the fact that aside from Lundqvist’s own effort and the help of the Hockey Gods stopping the puck on the goal line twice in the game, the Rangers did everything possible to make sure the Cup was presented to the Kings at Madison Square Garden after Game 4.

It’s been almost 10 years since I was in Boston for the 2004 ALCS and a 3-0 comeback that changed history. As I write this, I’m in Los Angeles, where I watched Game 4, surrounded by black and silver and fans wanting to see the Cup return to the beach for the second time in three years. And after Game 4 as the Rangers saluted the MSG crowd and the bar I was in at Hermosa Beach began to empty with long faces and dejected Kings fans wanting a reason to party on a Wednesday night and call out of work on a Thursday, I thought that maybe the Sports Gods decided, “We owe Neil a 3-0 series makeup call.” (Let’s hope they forgot they gave me Super Bowl XLII, which I watched in Boston.)

A few hours before Game 4, I was at a deli in Los Angeles where two Kings fans decked out in “Bow Down to the Crown” apparel spotted me wearing a Rangers shirt and said, “Sorry, man. Maybe next year,” in some what of a compassionate yet, sarcastic tone and I could hear my 18-year-old self back in 2004 in their tone. I knew they were thinking even if the Rangers won Game 4, they had to win four games before the Kings won once. And all I could think was, “They still have to win one more game.”

I can still hear the sound. I want to hear it on Wednesday night.

Read More

PodcastsRangersRangers Playoffs

Podcast: Brian Monzo

Brian Monzo of WFAN joins me to talk about how distraught he was after the Rangers’ Game 1 loss in the Stanley Cup Final and how his anger has turned to optimism for the series.

2014 NHL Stanley Cup Final - Game One

The Rangers haven’t looked as good as they did in the opening minutes of Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final possibly all season. And after they took a 2-0 lead in the first 15:03 of the series, it looked like they might run away with the game at Staples Center. But then an awful Derek Stepan turnover, some bad Marc Staal defense and the worst decision of Dan Girardi’s life changed the game and the series.

WFAN Mike’s On: Francesa on the FAN producer Brian Monzo joined me to talk about how distraught he was after the Rangers’ loss, the turnovers that decided Game 1 and how his anger has turned to optimism for the series. And then Monzo broke down the Belmont Stakes at the end of the podcast.

Read More

PodcastsRangersRangers Playoffs

Podcast: 610 Barstool Sports New York

610 of Barstool Sports New York joins me to talk about how bad Dan Girardi was in Game 1 and why Rick Nash needs to return to the power play right now.

2014 NHL Stanley Cup Final - Game One

The Rangers we saw in the opening minutes of Game 1 and the Rangers we saw in the third period and overtime of Game 1 were two different teams. The first team looked like a team ready and prepared not only for the Stanley Cup Final, but to win the series. The other team looked like a team whose season might only last three more games now. And after blowing an opportunity to at worst split the two games in Los Angeles, the Rangers now have to win Game 2.

610 of Barstool Sports New York joined me to talk about how bad Dan Girardi was in Game 1, why Rick Nash needs to return to the power play and what happened with the discounted Rangers jerseys from the NHL store.

Read More

BlogsRangersRangers Playoffs

The Rangers’ Cup Run Doesn’t Feel Real

A year ago the Rangers were lost after an embarrassing postseason exit. Now they’re going to play for the Stanley Cup. What a difference a year makes.

Henrik Lundqvist

When your team is facing finality and losing, the clock seems to tick away faster than normal as if the Hockey Gods set the periods to “5 minutes” EA Sports-style. And when your team has a chance at a fourth win in a series and a chance to advance, and in this case advance to the Stanley Cup Finals (I can’t say Final without hating myself) for the first time in 20 years, the clock seems to drag on as if time is standing still. On Thursday night, in the third period of Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals, time stood still.

Twenty-two days ago, the Rangers faced a 3-1 series deficit to the Metropolitan Division-winning Penguins after losing three consecutive games, including two at home and two by way of shutout. The 2013-14 Rangers’ season was on the brink of destruction, (The Hockey News’ Ken Campbell said it was actually over), and the Rangers were headed to Pittsburgh for Game 5 where everyone expected a postgame handshake to take place. But the handshake didn’t take place. Well, it did eventually, just not that night. It took place six nights later following Game 7 in Pittsburgh where the Rangers held on to a one-goal lead for 32 minutes and four seconds just like they did on Thursday night in Game 6 against the Canadiens for 21 minutes and 53 seconds.

After earning the 1-seed in the Eastern Conference in 2011-12, the Rangers made it to the Eastern Conference finals for the first time since 1996-97, but they did so with a Freddy Garcia-esque smoke-and-mirrors act. The Rangers only won the regular season because of Henrik Lundqvist’s historical Vezina year and because of their amazing ability to come back and win games in the final minutes or minute or even second as well as in overtime and shootouts. They needed Games 7s in the first and second rounds to get past the 8-seeded Senators and 7-seeded Capitals to make it to the conference finals and once the the bounces stopped going their way, the Devils ended their season. The 2011-12 Rangers were never as good as their record suggested and they were never as deep as they were trick people into believing. That Rangers team was missing one player to move them over the top and that player was Rick Nash.

At the 2011-12 trade deadline I was willing to give up anything and everything to pry Nash from the Blue Jackets and that included Chris Kreider. I told WFAN’s Steve Somers my feelings about Nash and he disagreed, thinking that keeping an NCAA standout was better than making a move in a special season for a proven elite scorer. I told WFAN’s Brian Monzo my feelings about Nash and he disagreed too, but eventually came around to see that seasons like the Rangers’ 2011-12 one don’t happen to often and when they do, you need to be prepared to go all in. The Rangers weren’t. They waited and eventually landed Nash five months later in July, long after the Devils had eliminated them because they didn’t have another elite scoring option to turn to with Marian Gaborik playing through the playoffs with a torn labrum.

The Rangers needed all but one game to clinch a playoff berth in 2013-14 and then when they did make it, they needed to overcome a 2-0 series deficit to the Capitals and win another Game 7 against them to advance. They entered their conference semis series with the Bruins as the favorites and five games later they left as embarrassed losers wondering where the direction of the franchise was headed and if they would ever be anything more than a first- or second-round playoff team with Glen Sather at the helm. But it took that five-game loss to the Bruins for Sather to make the first of his two most significant moves in his 14 years with the Rangers.

It was a year ago Thursday, the day of Game 6, that Sather fired John Tortorella after he lost the team and inexplicably benched his supposed “good friend” for the final two games of the season. (I still believe Lundqvist told Sather he wouldn’t sign an extension with the team if Tortorella stayed.) On Thursday night while the Rangers were holding off the Canadiens and winning the Prince of Wales Trophy, I like to think that John Tortorella spent his night watching Game 6 at an Applebee’s in Massachusetts, where he was of course given a shot of Wild Turkey on the house after Dominic Moore’s goal and then given a few more when time ran out on the Canadiens’ season. And I would also like to think that Tortorella stumbled out of that Applebee’s with a stain from a disgusting low-grade meat rack of ribs on his shirt and into some minor league level strip club where he drowned his sorrows using money from the five-year deal Mike Gillis gave him in Vancouver.

From Tortorella’s firing, Sather hired Alain Vigneault, who was given what seemed like all the tools to win with the Canucks, but couldn’t, blowing a 2-0 series lead in the only Cup he reached in Vancouver. I was skeptical of the Vigneault hiring, wondering why the Rangers would want to immediately give a chance, and a five-year deal chance, to someone with Vigneault’s lackluster resume. And when the Rangers started the season 3-7-0 and were 20-20-2 on Jan. 3, I began to envy Vigneault knowing he would eventually be collecting checks from the Rangers while fishing or playing golf every day, laughing that he could get a five-year deal so quickly following the failures with the Canucks. But Vigneault stayed the course and stuck with his system as the Rangers slowly but surely adapted it and understood it and eventually the wins started to come the way they did for him in Vancouver. However it wasn’t until the most significant decision of Sather’s tenure as Rangers general manager when the season completely changed and that’s because the Rangers completely changed.

Ryan Callahan was never the face of the Rangers. He was a fan favorite in the way that any blue-collar player on any NHL team is beloved (kind of like the way Brandon Prust was in New York), but he was never the face of the team or the organization despite having the “C” on his jersey. If anything, he was the heart of the team, while Number 30 in net was (and has been and still is) the brain of the team.

When Callahan opened his negotiations with the Rangers last offseason by starting at eight years, $60 million, he traded himself. The Rangers were never going to pay a third-liner, first-line star money, even if they could afford it, but with Nash and Richards’ contracts and Lundqvist’s extension they couldn’t. Callahan wouldn’t compromise even as Sather’s offer stupidly rose and he came dangerously close to destroying the Rangers’ cap for the rest of Lundqvist’s career, so Sather traded him for Martin St. Louis. And with that trade, Sather transformed a team with a strictly blue-collar image into a team that could play a finesse style as well as play the defense-first, shot-blocking style the Rangers played since the Jaromir Jagr era ended six years ago.

Since the end of that era, while the team changed, the roster turned over, the coaches changed and changed again and changed again and Sather continued to pour money into aging veterans who couldn’t score and kept trying to build a young defensive core that couldn’t defend, Henrik Lunqvist remained the same. He showed up every game and stood on his head for most, single-handedly carried the team to the playoffs and gave the Rangers hope and promise that maybe someday he would be given the right team around him to play for the Cup, so he wouldn’t have a career that reminiscent of Don Mattingly’s.

I always worried that the Rangers would waste Lundqvist’s prime by making the wrong personnel decisions and believed it would happen after they didn’t trade for Nash at the 2011-12 deadline and let that season and the conference finals get away from them. I thought Lundqvist would be an old man and a shell of himself by the time the Rangers had the depth and secondary scoring and legitimate defense to win games without needing him to give up one goal or less.

I thought this team could be the team that could accompany Lundqvist to the promised land, but I didn’t believe it. And 22 days ago I started to wonder what Lundqvist must think knowing that Marc-Andre Fleury has won the Cup and played for it twice or that Corey Crawford’s name is etched into it. I envisioned Lundqvist one day giving a speech on “Henrik Lundqvist Night” at the Garden and his achievements and accolades being announced by Sam Rosen with his Number 30 being raised and the rafters to sit alongside Mike Richter’s Number 35 forever without ever having had the chance to play for the Cup.

The way Game 6 ended felt right. The 1-0 win has become the textbook example of postseason success for the Rangers in the Henrik Lundqvist era where the team has asked him to stand on his head and protect one goal, so it was fitting that it was a 1-0 win that puts them in the Stanley Cup Finals. Lundqvist didn’t necessarily have to stand on his head the way he has in every other 1-0 win for this team, but he made the big save when he had to in the 18-shot shutout and he was given a lead entering the third period, asked to close it out and he did.

Over the last 22 days, Lundqvist has been himself. He’s been the same goalie he’s been his entire career even though people want to make this nine-game run out to be something more than it has been from the King. These are the same people who believe he has to win it all to prove himself in a sport with a 20-player roster in which he can’t provide offense or play defense as if he’s somehow playing golf or tennis. Now Lundqvist has a chance to end this ridiculous reasoning and end the unfair criticism forever. He has a chance to play for the Cup.

The Rangers are going to play for the Stanley Cup for the first time since I was in second grade. Right now it doesn’t feel real, but on Wednesday it will.

Read More

PodcastsRangersRangers Playoffs

Podcast: Brian Monzo

Brian Monzo of WFAN joins me to talk about the feel-good stories surrounding the Rangers’ Stanley Cup run and which Western Conference team Rangers fans should want to play.

New York Rangers vs. Montreal Canadiens

Three weeks ago this didn’t seem possible. And even though it’s now possible, it doesn’t feel real. The Rangers will play for the Stanley Cup starting on Wednesday after beating the Canadiens in Game 6 and in six games.

After a long stressful night waiting for time to run out on the Canadiens after Dominic Moore’s goal, I called WFAN Mike’s On: Francesa on the FAN producer Brian Monzo late on Thursday night into Friday morning to talk about the Rangers’ improbable three-week stretch. Monzo joined me to talk about the Rangers’ series win over the Canadiens, the feel-good stories surrounding the team’s Stanley Cup run and which team Rangers fans should want to play from the Western Conference.

Read More