fbpx

Tag: Dan Bylsma

BlogsRangersRangers Playoffs

The Season’s Not Over for the Rangers

The Rangers are back in the Eastern Conference finals for the second time in three years despite The Hockey News’ Ken Campbell writing them off after Game 4 against the Penguins.

New York Rangers at Pittsburgh Penguins

The Rangers weren’t supposed to come back against the Metropolitan-winning Penguins down 3-1 in the Eastern Conference semis. They weren’t supposed to go to Pittsburgh and dominate Game 5, take care of business at home in Game 6 and then let Henrik Lundqvist further prove why he is the best goaltender in the world in Game 7. The Rangers were supposed to lay down and serve as a red carpet for the Penguins to return to the Eastern Conference finals for the second consecutive year. At least that’s what The Hockey News’ Ken Campbell said.

Following the Rangers’ Game 4 loss to the Penguins, Campbell (the man who called U.S.-born hockey players “pampered, entitled rich kids“) wrote an 852-word  “column” (I use this word loosely) titled “Season’s over for the Rangers, now it’s time to look to the future” and took the easy route out of having to analyze hockey by going with the lazy rhetoric of “a team down 3-1 can’t come back” and pouring dirt on a still-breathing Rangers team and season. I had always been under the impression that it takes four wins to win a seven-game series, but Campbell informed me that you actually only need three. I could have used Campbell during the 2004 ALCS.

On Friday, the Penguins fired general manager Ray Shero and head coach Dan Bylsma could be next after failing to get out of the second round and failing to reach the Stanley Cup Final since winning it in 2008-09. On Saturday, the Rangers will play Game 1 of the Eastern Conference finals in Montreal while the Penguins will actively be looking to rebuild their front office in what will be the fourth day of their offseason. So let’s look back at Campbell’s “column” and his premature thoughts.

Well, the New York Rangers have allowed the star players of the Pittsburgh Penguins to finally find their way in this series. But the reality is that players such as Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin and Marc-Andre Fleury don’t even have to be that good. That’s because the bottom six forwards for the Penguins are outplaying the top six of the Rangers.

This story was written after Game 4. After Game 4, Fleury had produced back-to-back shutouts in Games 2 and 3, Malkin had two goals and three assists and Crosby had one goal and two assists. But over the final three games of the series, Fleury allowed 10 goals, Malkin had a goal and an assist and Crosby didn’t have a point as the Penguins scored three total goals in those games? It looks like the Penguins’ bottom six forwards were actually on the same level as the Penguins’ top six forwards.

And as long as Crosby can keep absorbing the hits to the head from Marc Staal and his merry band of headhunters, the Penguins have basically punched their ticket to the Eastern Conference final. Any team that is down 3-1 to a group as talented and explosive as the Penguins is always in serious trouble. A team down 3-1 whose best player is Mats Zuccarello is basically finished.

Marc Staal is a headhunter? That’s news to me. I would have classified him as someone who could afford to be more aggressive on the ice, but understand why he’s not due to his own history of head injuries and his career-threatening eye injury last season. But hey, let’s call Marc Staal a headhunter because ONE TIME he made high contact with Crosby. And who’s in Staal’s “merry band” of fellow headhunters and what makes them so merry? Does this band have a name? What instrument does Staal play? I could see him as a bass player.

I’m the biggest non-Penguins fan Sidney Crosby fan in the world. I defend and support The Kid against critics from every corner and he’s not the media and he’s not the Pittsburgh and Canadian honks (that’s the first time I ever used the word “honk” but Mike Hurley used it the other day and it stuck with me) that get visibly, emotionally and then literally distraught when something or someone hits him high. But if we’re going to call Marc Staal (the Marc Staal with 254 penalty minutes in 460 career games) a headhunter then what word do we use to classify someone like Matt Cooke? Well, let’s ask Campbell, since just last week he wrote a column titled “Has Matt Cooke really changed? Hell, yeah!

Nothing against Zuccarello, but if he’s the best player for the Rangers, and he is, it means their highly-paid stars are not doing the job, which they’re not. Full marks to the Penguins for getting the job done, but this is a mediocre team they’re playing at the moment, one that would get ripped to shreds if it had to play in the Western Conference. Perhaps they’ll point to the fatigue factor – and if they’re still tired they should immediately fire their strength and conditioning coach – but this was a Ranger team that played with no urgency, no ability to handle the puck and no pushback. And that’s on the stars of this team, from Henrik Lundqvist out.

Mats Zuccarello was great during the regular season (19-40-59) and has continued that play in the playoffs (3-5-8), but he’s not the Rangers’ best player, not even close. But if you didn’t watch the Rangers during the regular season and just quickly browsed their team statistics page, then that is the conclusion you would come to.

What does “Full marks to the Penguins for getting the job done” mean? What job did they get done? Winning three games? Sending a series to seven games? Reaching the conference semifinals? Blowing a 3-1 series lead? Losing two home games with a chance to eliminate the Rangers?

Is that what I think it is? Is it? No, no, it can’t be. That can’t be a columnist from The Hockey News blaming Henrik Lundqvist for the Rangers trailing 3-1 in the series at one point. But it is. This is real life.

As I have said many times in many ways in many places, Henrik Lundqvist is the sole reason for any post-lockout success the Rangers have had. He is the reason they have reached the playoffs in eight of the nine seasons of his career and he’s the reason the Rangers came back to beat the Penguins in this series. And if the Rangers win the Eastern Conference or the Stanley Cup, it will be because of Henrik Lundqvist. He is the New York Rangers. But that didn’t stop Campbell from looking at the final scores of the first four games of the series to make a judgment. The box score doesn’t show goals that the Rangers scored against Lundqvist, but it does show that in two of the four games the Rangers were shut out. Where was Lundqvist in those two shutout losses? Why didn’t he provide more offense?

All in all, Game 4 was a pathetic effort from a team that fancies itself a contender in the Eastern Conference. But here’s the thing. The Rangers simply aren’t that good. They have a long way to go before becoming anything approximating a legitimate threat to win the Stanley Cup, or even come close. It’s probably safe to assume now that the first-round series between the Rangers and Philadelphia Flyers pitted the two worst teams in this year’s playoffs against one another.

If the Rangers “simply aren’t that good” then what are the Penguins? And what do we make of a team that reaches the conference finals? The Rangers have won two series this postseason, two Game 7s (and they have won their last five Game 7s) and they just won three straight against a team that boasts the best player in the world and possibly the second-best player in the world as well.

If the Rangers and Flyers were the two worst teams in the 16-team tournament then what do we make of the Penguins? What are the Lightning, who lasted four games in the playoffs? What about the Red Wings who lasted five? What about the Avalanche who went down as a 1-seed or the Blues who choked? What do you make of the 12 playoff teams that aren’t playing anymore?

And part of the problem for the Rangers is they remain their own worst enemy. Perhaps it would be different if the Rangers weren’t such a desired destination for players. Then it might not be tempted to try to grab every fading star player just because he happens to be available.

Think about it. Brad Richards came to the Rangers in 2011 on a nine-year deal. Other teams made more lucrative pitches to Richards, but he essentially had his heart set on playing for the Rangers. The moment Rick Nash waived his no trade clause with the Columbus Blue Jackets in 2013, it was basically assumed that the Rangers were going to get him. And when Martin St.-Louis sulked his way out of Tampa Bay prior to the trade deadline, it was to go to one team and one team only – the Rangers.

Thank you for writing how long Brad Richards’ contract is for and for giving us a behind-the-scenes look at the Nash trade and for telling us where St. Louis wanted to play.

Each of those acquisitions has been nothing short of a disaster so far. Nash, who had a dreadful game and an equally dreadful playoff for the Rangers, is now getting booed every time he touches the puck. In his own building. Nash has actually been contributing in his own end of the ice, but so does Anze Kopitar and it doesn’t stop him from creating offense. Since the 2006 Olympics, Nash has played a combined 45 Olympic and NHL playoff games and has four goals. Richards has scored some and had a pretty good first season in New York in both the regular season and the playoffs, but seems to be on the decline and is the point man on a power play that hasn’t scored in its past 38 opportunities. And St-Louis? Three goals in 30 regular season and playoff games since coming to the Rangers.

Unless Richards started putting together some Gretzky late-80s stat lines when he came to the Rangers, there’s no way he could ever justify his nine-year, $60 million deal. But who could? That’s what the going price was for him at the time of his free agency and like Campbell said, the Rangers weren’t the only team willing to dramatically overpay for him. Richards wanted to be a Ranger. And I’m not so sure he’s been a disaster. He’s played in 210 of a possible 212 regular-season games in three years and has 56 goals and 95 assists in those games. He is the Rangers’ leading scorer in these playoffs and was their leading scorer when they went to the conference finals two years ago. Aside from John Tortorella inexplicably scratching him during the playoffs last year (I wonder what John Tortorella was doing on Tuesday night?), Richards has been a solid Ranger. He hasn’t been the elite No. 1 center and playmaker the Rangers thought they were signing for nine years, but he hasn’t been as bad as everyone has made him out to be either.

I can’t make any excuses for Nash’s lack of postseason scoring, but to say he has been a disaster is irresponsible. Last season he had 21 goals and 21 assists in 44 games (over a full season that’s 39 goals and 39 assists), and the Rangers were winless in the four games he missed due to a concussion. He didn’t have a great postseason last year (1-4-5 in 12 games), but no one on the Rangers did after the first round. This season, Nash missed 17 games with another concussion suffered in the third game of the season and finished with 26 goals and 13 assists in 65 games. Now that’s not a strong ratio, but Nash has never been one for apples and unsurprisingly he has 336 goals and 292 assists in his career, which is a pretty drastic difference. But his 26 goals this season translate into 32.8 goals over a full season. I wanted Nash at the 2011-12 deadline and was willing to include Chris Kreider in a deal to get him and he ended up being the missing link the loss to the Devils. I was ecstatic when he became a Ranger and becaues of that, I have been an adamant supporter of him and have yet to give up on him after a couple bad postseasons. He’s still creating offensive chances and playing tremendous defense (yes, I’m aware he’s not paid to do those things), so it’s not like he isn’t helping the team win. But to think the Rangers have reached the conference finals without him scoring a goal is incredible, and if one of his patented streaks begins in the conference finals, the Rangers will be playing for the Cup.

What would Campbell’s solution have been for St. Louis? Keep Ryan Callahan, meet his ridiculous contract demands and destroy the Rangers’ future? Campbell probably would have liked that so he could churn out some more “columns” about how the Rangers have cap issues. Callahan was getting traded no matter what once he wouldn’t compromise with Glen Sather and Sather got the best return for him. If it wasn’t a trade for St. Louis, it would have been a trade with the Sharks or Ducks for much lesser packages. And I’m pretty sure it’s St. Louis and his personal life that changed the locker room over their last three games and changed the course of this season. But yeah, what a disaster Martin St. Louis has been!

Which brings us to the future of this team. Yes, it’s time to start looking to the future. The Rangers have $54.9 million committed to salaries for next season. They have only four regular defensemen – Ryan McDonagh , Staal, Dan Girardi and Kevin Klein – signed for next season. Up front,  Derick Brassard and Chris Kreider are restricted free agents.

By saying that St. Louis has been a disaster, Campbell implied that trading for him was a bad move and that implies that the Rangers should have kept Ryan Callahan and that implies the Rangers should have signed Callahan and that would have ruined the Rangers’ chances of re-signing most of these players he just named. But like I said, that’s likely what Campbell wanted. You do know 850-word “columns” aren’t going to write themselves.

So, the question must be asked. On which of Nash or Richards should the Rangers use their remaining compliance buyout? Knowing them, probably not either, but it would rid the Rangers of one onerous contract. If it were Richards, the Rangers would be forced to pay $18 million in real money since $33 million of his $60 million deal has already been paid out, but would have a cap savings of $6.7 million for the next six seasons. If they were to buy out Nash, it would cost them $21.3 million in real dollars and would save them $7.8 million against the cap for each of the next four seasons.

If anyone gets bought out, it’s not Nash. But if the Rangers weren’t going to buy Richards out after last season’s playoff embarrassment and Richards’ letdown in play then why does everyone think it’s such a guarantee he is bought out after this year? Yes, the Rangers could use some cap relief and he would provide that, but he has become the captain of this team despite wearing just an “A” and though Ryan McDonagh will be the next captain of the Rangers, it’s obvious Richards has an important role with the team.

In our annual Future Watch issue, THN ranked the Rangers dead-last in terms of its group of prospects. Which means the Rangers are far closer to a tear-down than they are a Stanley Cup championship. Perhaps it’s time to begin that process now.

Campbell has since written an excuse for his “column” saying he isn’t apologizing because he is in the business of making predictions. So what does he do? Make another prediction of course. This time he says the Rangers will lose to the Canadiens.

And the Rangers might lose to the Canadiens, but right now the Rangers are four wins away from playing for a championship. They are eight wins away from winning their first championship in 20 years. It’s only been three days since the collapse of both the Penguins and Campbell’s prediction and they have already been torn down.

Read More

PodcastsRangersRangers Playoffs

Podcast: Kevin DeLury

Kevin DeLury of The New York Rangers Blog joins me to talk about the Rangers’ matchup with the Penguins and what will happen to Rick Nash if he continues to go scoreless in the playoffs.

Sidney Crosby and Henrik Lundqvist

It’s never easy when it comes to the Rangers and once again they needed seven games to get by their first-round opponent, but at least they got by the Flyers. Now things get a little harder with the Rangers going to Pittsburgh to start their conference semifinals series with the Penguins after just one day off with the two teams set to play three games over the next four days.

Kevin DeLury of The New York Rangers Blog joined me to talk about the Rangers’ matchup with the Penguins, what will happen to Rick Nash if he continues to go scoreless in the playoffs and how Daniel Carcillo should be in the lineup for the entire postseason.

Read More

PodcastsTeam USA

Podcast: Mike Hurley

Mike Hurley of CBS Boston joins me to talk about Team USA’s disappointing finish in Sochi and why Gary Bettman and the NHL would be making a mistake to not allow players to compete in future Olympics.

After a perfect start to the 2014 Olympics, Team USA was unable to score against Canada to advance to the gold-medal game and was unable to score against Finland in the bronze-medal game. So now we will have to four more years to end the gold-medal drought, which will be at 38 years in 2018.

With the Olympics now over, Mike Hurley of CBS Boston joined me talk about Team USA’s disappointing finish in Sochi, Dan Bylsma being the wrong coach for the team and why Gary Bettman and the NHL would be making a mistake to not allow players to compete in future Olympics.

Read More

BlogsTeam USA

Team USA-Canada Thoughts: Goodbye, Gold Medal

Team USA was dominated by Canada in the semifinals and the chance to end the goal-medal drought will have to wait another four years.

Friday could have been memorable. Team USA could have beaten Canada. They could have played for the gold medal for the second time in as many Olympics and the third time in the last four. They could have forced Canada to play for the bronze medal on Saturday morning. They could have proven that USA Hockey is on the same level as Hockey Canada. They could have been one win closer to winning gold for the first time since 1980.

But Friday wasn’t memorable. At least not in a good way. Jonathan Quick was the only member of Team USA to show up and we’re lucky he did. Or maybe we’re not since all Quick’s performance did was prevent Americans from changing the channel as they watched the clock slowly tick away on their gold medal dreams. Without Quick, every American could have gone back to work earlier or saved their bank account from an excessive early-afternoon or bar tab or flipped over to watch King of Queens or Everybody Loves Raymond reruns rather than monitor the clock in the final minutes and seconds of the semifinal game, hoping Team USA had another last-minute Zach Parise goal from 2010 in their back pocket.

The Team USA we saw on Thursday wasn’t the team we saw the previous four games and that’s Dan Bylsma’s fault. Throughout the game, the team made no adjustments to create offense as the clock slowly wound down on their goal-medal campaign. Aside from Patrick Kane giving us a few “Ohhhh!” and “Ahhhh!” moments (and those were mostly exaggerated “Ohhhh!” and “Ahhhh!” moments since we were looking for something, anything to be excited about) Team USA never really came close to putting the puck in the net. The worst kind of hockey fans are those that get overly excited and get out of their seat for any 3-on-2 or for their team simply carrying the puck over the opposing blue since it’s unlikely either of those things will result in a goal, but I found myself getting worked up whenever Team USA was able to just gain possession on the other side of the red.

It’s hard to win when you don’t score and despite recording 31 shots (though I’m still unsure of where about 20 of those came from), you can count the true Team USA scoring chances on one hand and you could still count them if that one hand had only three fingers. Team USA never challenged Carey Price and never made a goalie who wouldn’t cross my mind in picking to start for me in a game for everything work for his eventual shutout. Canada dominated the entire game and again, if it weren’t for Quick, what was a 1-0 game would have easily been 5-0 or 6-0 or worse. Quick played like the former Conn Smythe he is and the Olympic MVP he could have been had Team USA won the game.

Despite the result, it’s hard to think that this Team USA was only one goal worse than this Team Canada. Canada was missing it’s second- and third- best players (Steven Stamkos and Jonathan Tavares) and they still won and they are still playing for the goal medal. It’s hard to think about what the result of the game would have been if Canada had Stamkos and Tavares in the lineup or if Quick had only been amazing and not unbelievable. If Patrick Kane is Team USA’s best player, where would this team be without Phil Kessel and Zach Parise (or whoever you think are Team USA’s best two players after Kane)? But this game doesn’t mean that USA Hockey has lost a step in its pursuit of Hockey Canada over the last four years. It’s just that this Team USA wasn’t as good as this Team Canada.

After waiting four years thinking that this would be the time to end the drought, it’s all over. Sure, Team USA plays again on Saturday morning against Finland for the bronze medal, but who cares? Anything other than gold was going to be a disappointment after the way the 2010 Games ended in overtime in Vancouver. Making the gold-medal game wasn’t going to be enough. Only winning gold was.

Read More

BlogsTeam USA

Team USA-Slovakia Thoughts: It’s Not Worth Winning If You Can’t Win Big

Team USA started their quest for the gold medal with a 7-1 win over Slovakia in a game that actually had me nervous past the first period.

I have always wondered what it would be like to live on the West Coast during football season and wake up just in time to watch the 1:00 p.m. games at 10:00 a.m. Instead of waiting for the football day to start by watching one of the dozen pregame shows, tinkering with fantasy teams or putting together improbable parlays in hopes of seven underdogs winning so I can retire to Hawaii, it would be nice to just wake up, turn the TV on and have the game start. I got a taste of that life on Thursday.

When I woke up on Thursday morning, I was greeted by Doc Emrick for Team USA hockey against Slovakia in the first game of the 2014 Olympics at 7:30 a.m.

– The troubling thing about the Olympics is that you don’t know what to expect. Sure, Team USA has one of the best rosters in the tournament, but you don’t know how the players and line combinations are going to work out or what kind of on-ice chemistry there will be once the first game starts. While they are coming off a silver-medal performance, it’s not like they are really coming off of a silver-medal performance since that was four years ago. So entering the game I was worried that the team would have trouble scoring goals like the Rangers and that fear was growing in the first period for the 14:27 of the game before John Carlson blasted one top tit past Jaroslav Halak.

Looking back at the game now, knowing that Team USA won 7-1, it’s funny to think at 0-0, 1-0 USA, 1-1 and 2-1 USA, I was worried about losing this game. After Slovakia tied it up to start the second, I envisioned a 2-1 loss and started to have flashbacks from 2006 in Turin. I’m glad I can now laugh at my unnecessary worrying from the first 22:32 of the game.

– I kept forgetting that the actual game was on Eastern Standard Time and had to remind myself that Doc Emrick couldn’t possibly be this fired up before 8 a.m. since he actually wasn’t. When the puck dropped, it was already 4:30 p.m in Sochi and Emrik wasn’t rattling off Slovakian names with such enthusiasm in the early hours of the morning. But in the words of David Wooderson (Matthew McConaughey) in Dazed and Confused, “It would be a lot cooler if he did.”

For as enjoyable as it is to listen to Emrick, that’s how painful it is listening to Pierre McGuire as one of the first voices you hear to start your day. That also goes for Ed Olczyk in this game as he didn’t have his A-game with him for the U.S. opener. How about Olczyk (I refuse to call him “Edzo”) throwing out the early “active boards” in the game. And then with eight minutes left in the second, there was the casual “Boy, they are using those boards a lot, aren’t they?” on the broadcast.

– In the second period, Team USA scored six times. Here are their goals:

1:26 – Ryan Kesler (Patrick Kane)

2:32 – Paul Stastny (Max Pacioretty, T.J. Oshie)

8:16 – David Backes (Phil Kessel)

13:30 – Paul Stastny (Kevin Shattenkirk, T.J. Oshie)

14:20 – Phil Kessel (Ryan Kesler, James van Riemsdyk)

15:17 – Dustin Brown (John Carlson, Patrick Kane)

So Team USA scored at 1:26 then they scored 1:06 after that, 5:44 after that, 5:14 after that, 50 seconds after that and 57 seconds after that. At that point, I thought Dan Bylsma was going to have to tell the team they were to make five passes before shooting in the third period and I think he did. Team USA had 11 shots in the first period and 16 in the second, but just six shots and no goals in the third. Yes, 7-1 was enough that point, and Team USA should have no problem getting one of the four bye seeds in the quarterfinals, but the second tiebreaker for the tournament (after head-to-head matchup) is goal differential. Pierre was right when he said, “It’s international hockey, you’ve got to run it up.”

– Even though I have known it for some time, I still find it intriguing/interesting/odd that Paul Stastny plays for Team USA even though he was born in Quebec, while his dad played Slovakia. Paul has dual citizenship for the United States and Canada and could technically play for either team, but I think he made the right choice since he probably wouldn’t be in Sochi if had chosen to be Canadian over American and Team USA wouldn’t be as good as they are without him. Everybody wins because Paul Stastny wants to be American instead of Canadian.

– I’m not going to make a big deal out of the missed offside call given the outcome of the game. But yes, had Slovakia won the game or won by a goal, I would probably already have a few thousand words about it.

– One of my friends said that he thinks Ryan Miller should get the start on Saturday against Russia to which I asked “Whyyyyyyyyy?” If Quick was the No. 1 goalie entering the Olympics, which he clearly was and is since he started against Slovakia, then why would he not start every game of the tournament until he proves he isn’t the No. 1? Against Slovakia, he let in one goal on 23 shots and deserves to start on Saturday. If Miller were to start, Bylsma and the Team USA front office would be starting Miller because of his MVP performance in the 2010 Olympics. If they were going to reward him for that, they should have made it clear he was the No. 1 goalie before the Olympics and made it clear Quick would be the No. 2. But now they can’t start him based on his performance from four years ago after they left players off this roster because they didn’t want to reward past performances. And if Miller did start on Saturday and Team USA wins, who starts on Sunday against Slovenia?

Coaches want to make less decisions and things as easy as possible for them. Creating an unneeded goalie controversy isn’t something you want to do for a team coming off a dominant win and about to play the best team in their group.

Read More