fbpx

Tag: Derek Stepan

Podcasts

Nov 13, 2013

Podcast: Brian Monzo

Brian Monzo of WFAN joins me to talk about why he supposedly didn’t care about the NHL entering this season and where Henrik Lundqvist will play next year.

It took the Rangers nearly a month to get their season on track, but they have done so by winning seven of their last 10 games and climbing out of their early 2-6 hole. I wasn’t sure if Mike’s On: Francesa on the FAN producer Brian Monzo had even watched the first month-plus of the NHL season after he wrote a blog on Opening Night saying how he didn’t care that the NHL was back.

Monzo joined me to talk about the state of the NHL, why he is against the league’s front office and rule changes, whether or not NHL players should play in the Olympics, if the Islanders made the right decision trading Matt Moulson for Thomas Vanek and where Henrik Lundqvist will play next season.

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 • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 13, 2013

Dreaming of a Rangers-Bruins Postseason Series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then they stop it abruptly and start a breakaway contest.

It makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 6, 2013

John Tortorella’s Postgame Conference: A Tradition Like No Other

John Tortorella’s postgame press conferences have sparked a new tradition.

The Rangers lost on Tuesday because they won on Saturday. When you’re a team playing .444 hockey, you usually follow a win with a loss and a loss with a win. (If you’re a betting man, you might want to take the Rangers on Thursday against the Islanders.) But when you’re a team trailing the Canadiens, Maple Leafs,  Islanders and Jets in the standings, you’re not a good team. Through nine games the Rangers aren’t a good team.

The Rangers fell behind early to the Devils on Tuesday night, couldn’t regain momentum and forced me to question the actual meaning of the phrase “power play” with an 0-for-5 night on the man advantage, which included a four-minute power play. Saturday’s game against the Lightning made me once again think the team might have the type of seven-game winning streak in them they had last season from Oct. 31 to Nov. 15 and instead they put together as painful of an offensive showing as they did last Thursday against the Penguins. Tuesday night in Newark was another poor effort from the Rangers in which they failed to score more than one goal for the fourth time in nine games. Or was it?

According to John Tortorella, the Rangers didn’t play poorly aside from special teams. The only problem with Tortorella’s evaluation of the loss is that there isn’t a column in the standings following overtime losses for “Head Coach Thought His Own Team Played Well” and they don’t give out any points for that either. If you watched Tortorella’s postgame answers it was clear that he was correctly upset with the power play, but he was also more than a little delusional about the result of the game since the Devils were the team that scored three goals and the Rangers were the team that scored one goal.

So we’re going to start a tradition here on Keefe To The City and analyze John Tortorella’s postgame press conferences after Rangers losses (and I guess wins too if he happens to be upset about winning), using the same format from his preseason interview with Mike Francesa.

On whether or not he’s upset with the power play.

“Well, Sam you know my answer and I’m not going to go through it here, so you know my answer with that. We were the better team 5-on-5 tonight, it’s our special teams that let us down.”

Sam Rosen asked the question so Tortorella fired back at Rosen, who whether you like his play-by-play calling or not, couldn’t be any nicer of a broadcast personality. So for the Rangers head coach with a New York resume that boasts a 14-18 postseason record, two first-round exits, one Conference Finals loss and one missed postseason to talk down to the TV voice of the Rangers is always a good look.

Tortorella is aware that he is the head coach of the Rangers, right? Because he makes it sound a lot like he isn’t associated with the special teams and he is upset with their production as if he doesn’t decide who is on the power play. (That’s for Michael Del Zotto, who despite being the least talented player on the ice on the power play, feels like he should be the one the power play runs through and the one to shoot. Imagine if you put Louis CK, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock and Ricky Gervais in a room to talk about comedy, which HBO did, but you also put Seth Rogen in that room and he was the one talking over everyone and trying to lead the conversation. That’s Michael Del Zotto on the power play.)

If Tortorella isn’t going to address the question with the media or if he doesn’t feel the need to address it with the media, who is he going to address it with? The power play is now 3-for-35 on the year after an 0-for-5 night on Tuesday, which means they were 3-for-30 before Tuesday’s loss, which means that he clearly hasn’t gone “through it” anywhere with anyone.

On if the problems on the power play are correctable.

“Yeah. Yeah they are. They are. There’s no sense of me running it down here with you guys. It’s been a struggle. It hurt us again tonight. I liked a lot of things about our 5-on-5 play with a number of people, but tonight it’s special teams.”

Ah, again Tortorella doesn’t think he needs to “run it down here.” He’s going to save that discussion for the big boys who have put together power-play units that have produced three power-play goals in 35 attempts. Those numbers would be good for Mark Teixeira and Curtis Granderson combined average in the postseason, but for a team with real talent on the power play, it’s unacceptable.

As for the 5-on-5 talk, that’s nice that the Rangers played well with even strength and if only the part of the games when even strength play occurred counted then yes, I would have also like the 5-on-5 play a lot too. But special teams are a part of the game. A big part of the game. And right now the Rangers have the worst power play in the league and the 18th-ranked penalty kill.

On if it’s frustrating to have a good game and then follow with a slow start.

“Actually I didn’t think we had a slow start. I thought we started pretty well.”

The Rangers didn’t have a slow start. They only trailed after five minutes of play and didn’t get on the board until 6:28 of the third period. No big deal.

“Again, we get scored on, which was a gift. Michael turns it over, Gabby turns if over first, Michael turns it over. I thought we gave them two free ones.”

Here’s a little secret: the free goals count too. Whether Michael Del Zotto stands in line at Macy’s to have a goal for the Devils gift wrapped with a bow and a card or whether Ilya Kovalchuk goes end to end and dangles through five Rangers before going top tit on Henrik Lundqvist, they count the same.

On the play of the rookies and the job security of players.

“Absolutely they’re probably going to take some people’s jobs. Because I tell you with our hockey club right now we have some guys that are really playing hard and we got some guys that look scared to me and tentative.”

Any guesses on the “hard” players and the “scared/tentative” players for those whose jobs are in jeopardy? I have some.

Hard
Taylor Pyatt

Scared/Tentative
Carl Hagelin
Brian Boyle
Jeff Halpern

I don’t really know where to put Derek Stepan here. If Tortorella is serious about taking guys out of the lineup then I think Stepan has to be on the bubble between these two categories. But Stepan also has this weird Nick Swisher-like aura to him in that if I put him in the Scared/Tentative group it’s going to upset a lot of people since there are Rangers fans out there who wouldn’t have gone through with the Nash deal if Stepan was included. (I didn’t say intelligent fans.) Stepan does have five points though, which is two more than those three have combined.

“We’ll see where we go with our lineup, but I’ll tell you right now, we’re not waiting.”

Tortorella has a chance to win me over here. If he’s going to threaten the job security of players then go through with it. Don’t just throw it out there to the media because it sounds tough if you aren’t going to act upon it.

I have seen 14:25 from J.T. Miller and I already know that the Rangers were eight games late on calling him up to the NHL. If you didn’t know that Tuesday night was his NHL debut, you wouldn’t have known from the way he played and handled himself, especially on the power play. He has to be in the lineup. Brian Boyle and Jeff Halpern don’t.

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Jan 23, 2013

Rangers Better Be Ready for Rematch with Bruins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More