Gary Bettman – Keefe To The City

Tag: Gary Bettman

Feb 24, 2014

Don’t Change What Olympic Hockey Has Become

Team USA came up short in Sochi and if Gary Bettman and the league have their way, it might be the last time the United States has a chance to win the gold medal with NHL players.

My biggest fear about this Team USA was scoring goals. When the team was announced on New Year’s Day, I battled a debilitating hangover to stay awake through the Red Wings-Maple Leafs Winter Classic for the release of the team, and my first thought following the end of the ceremony was that Team USA was going to be a more star-studded version of the New York Rangers. They would be a hard-nosed team that forechecks through grinding and plays steady defense, but really, they would rely on their goaltending to win games.

During the first game, my fear was being realized for the first 14:27 against Slovakia until John Carlson scored. And then when Slovakia tied it just 24 seconds into the second, I thought “This might be a one-goal game” and “What if we don’t score then next goal?” But Team USA scored six unanswered goals and won 7-1. They got past Russia thanks to Quick’s net being off its mooring and T.J. Oshie’s incredible shootout skills. Their game against Slovenia turned into their second first-round laugher and then it turned out I had nothing to be nervous about playing the aging Czech Republic team in the quarterfinals.

All along we knew the tournament would come down to Team USA, Canada, Sweden, Finland and Russia. We knew those five teams were the only teams with a true chance at winning gold and that the other seven teams were just there to fill out the 12-team field. Getting to the semifinals seemed like it would be a formality (and it was) and then once Team USA got there is when the tournament would really start for them. But once there is when my biggest fear for Team USA 2014 was realized. Team USA was shut out by Canada and lost the chance of playing in the gold-medal game and then they were shut out by Finland and lost the chance at leaving Sochi with a medal. The feeling about the state of USA Hockey between the win over the Czech Republic and the start of the semifinal game against Canada was erased. After a four-win week, the positive storylines surrounding Oshie and Quick and Phil Kessel turned into criticism of Patrick Kane’s production, Dan Bylsma’s coaching and the front office’s player selection process.

Prior to the tournament, I thought the gold medal was Canada’s to lose the way I have thought the gold medal was Canada’s to lose every Olympics. But after Team USA’s 20 goals in their four dominant efforts and Quick’s Conn Smythe-esque performances, I thought this was the year USA Hockey overtook Hockey Canada. I was wrong. And this might have been the last chance for the United States to prove itself in the Olympics with NHL players.

If Gary Bettman, his trusty staff and the NHL owners have their way, there’s no way the league will allow its players to compete in the 2018 Games in South Korea. I can’t imagine there are any general managers, who aren’t part of their country’s front office, that enjoy watching their players — the keys to their own jobs and livelihoods — compete in playoff-like games with nothing at stake for their employers. I’m sure Glen Sather isn’t too happy that his leading scorer will miss the next few weeks with a broken hand suffered in Sochi and Garth Snow has already made it known that he isn’t a fan of the Olympics now that his franchise player and Team Canada’s third-best player is out for the rest of the season with a torn MCL.

Despite injuries, which are going to happen in the NHL as well the Olympics, the Games have proven to be the best infomercial for a league that has tried everything to increase their audience and gain attention in the post-lockout era. But the NHL still doesn’t recognize that. Gary Bettman doesn’t recognize that. All he knows is that for three weeks, his league didn’t play any games this season even though what was happening in Sochi was doing more for the growth of his game than anything that has happened in North America this season. But can you blame Bettman or the owners for not wanting to continue to capitalize on something positive for the league and its fans?

Under Bettman’s watch, teams have left Canada as well as two of the United States’ few hockey hotbeds in Connecticut and Minnesota for the Southern U.S. Bettman locked out his players in 1994-95, again in 2004-05 and a third time in 2012-13. He has been the face of countless bad ideas for the league and its fans and has continued serving as the commissioner, preaching that the league is flourishing, finding new revenues and doing better than ever. Or at least better than it was at the time of his most recent lockout. He has pissed on his fans, real fans who have grown up with the game in an attempt to make the sport appeal to those who first heard T.J. Oshie’s name nine days ago. He has only ever cared about attracting casual fans and you would think that he would view the Olympics as a marketing blessing every four years. Instead he has been outspoken on trying to prohibit NHL players from participating in the Olympics.

It won’t come as a shock if NHL players aren’t competing in the 2018 Games and we get basically another version of the World Juniors. As fans, we won’t get to properly measure each nation’s level of hockey against the other nations since the countries with the best players won’t be allowed to send those players to the Olympics. It will still be quality hockey and I will still watch because it’s hockey, but it won’t be what Olympic hockey has become and is supposed to be: each country’s best players.

I will be back for the Olympics in four years in South Korea. And I’m sure I will be on my couch on New Year’s Day fighting the lasting effects of too much Fireball and waiting for Team USA to be unveiled after the Winter Classic. I just hope the league and its owners allow that team to be full of NHL players.

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.

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.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Jan 31, 2013

Rangers and Penguins Searching for Consistency

The Penguins are back in New York for their second game against the Rangers and with both teams struggling early on this season it called for an email exchange with James Conley of PensBurgh.

The Rangers and Penguins were supposed to be the class of the Eastern Conference. And they still might be at the end of the season, but after six games the East’s best two teams from last year are both 3-3-0.

James Conley of PensBurgh joined me for an email exchange to talk about what’s wrong with the Penguins right now, what happened in the playoffs against the Flyers last year and how Matt Cooke completely changed his style of play.

Keefe: From the moment the lockout ended until Game 1 of the season, I told anyone who would listen to me that the Rangers, Penguins and Bruins would be the class of the East (in no particular order). But after six games, only the Bruins have held up their end of my preseason prediction bargain. The Rangers and Penguins? They’re both 3-3-0 with one-eighth of the season gone.

The Rangers’ three losses have come against the Bruins, your Penguins and the Flyers. Three postseason teams a year ago, and two of the three teams I believed to be the best in the East this year.

The Penguins’ three losses have come against the Maple Leafs, Jets and Islanders. Three non-postseason teams a year ago and having seen the Leafs against the Rangers on Saturday night, I can’t believe the Penguins lost to them.

After starting out 2-0 against the Flyers and Rangers, the Penguins are 1-3-0 and have been outscored 14-6 against some very inferior opponents (on paper). It’s early, but then again with only 48 games, it’s not that early.

Let’s open this up with how concerned you are, if at all, about the Penguins right now.

Conley: Concern is a good word for the Penguins right now. The shortened season really makes it hard to implement changes and it’s becoming apparent that something must change. The margin for error is just so, so slim. Like you mentioned, it’s only six games at 3-3-0, but it’s still a significant chunk of the season. If the Penguins decide they need to make some changes — whether that’s matching lines, new personnel or going deep and making an organizational change — they aren’t going to have the kind of time they’d like to let something new work itself out.

The other concern, and maybe this is related to the first, is their inability to make tactical changes and apply them within a 60-minute game window. It started in Pittsburgh last Wednesday with Toronto. The Maple Leafs pressured the Penguins in one-on-one battles where the Flyers and Rangers didn’t, and the Pens weren’t able to respond. Teams are feasting on the Penguins’ cute setups and turning them into goals. That has gone on for the last four games, and it seems like every team that is willing to do the work can upset the Penguins’ game plan exactly as the Flyers were able to do last Spring.

Is it just rust? It stands to reason that a team that relies on high-skilled, timing plays would need some adjustment time to account for the joke training camps following the lockout. But the Penguins’ problems seem to go back to late last season, when the team quit “beating” their opponents and simply outscored them. It seems like they’re hesitant to beat clubs by playing the physical game, by cycling the puck, by chipping and chasing. The team was successful in the spring of 2011 even after Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin went down with injuries because they adjusted their game plan to address their weaknesses. With those two in the lineup, it seems like no one wants to make the smart, simple but boring plays that a team has to make a thousand times in any one game if they want to be successful. That it carried over from last year’s playoff thud to now seems less like an aberration and more like a fundamental flaw. I’m not sure that’s a problem that can be addressed with line-matching and a bag skate.

Keefe: I know what it feels like to be concerned because I feel the same way with the Rangers. Maybe not to the extent that you do since the Rangers’ losses were against the Bruins, Penguins and Flyers, but because every loss is that magnified this season and every win seems to feel like things are fixed. But I also like that each game and each game’s two points are so significant and that each week is packed with three-plus games and the postseason is just three months away.

You mentioned last season, which I wanted to talk about because I don’t think anyone could have envisioned it ending the way it did for the Penguins. They were the four seed in the playoffs even though they had the second-best record in the East (Ladies and gentlemen, the NHL playoff system giving the division winners the top seeds!) and missed out on having the No. 1 overall seed by a point. But then they lost to the Flyers in six games, after having a 2-1 series lead, (though I don’t think I need to remind you), because of 30 goals allowed in a six-game series! 30! Three … zero! (Not that the Flyers were that much better having allowed 26, including 10 in Game 3.)

Despite the Rangers’ No. 1 seed last year, I thought the Penguins were the best team in the league. And if the season were 83 games instead of 82 then maybe the Penguins win the East and their playoff path changes and they are spending the summer with the Cup. But for a team that struggled to get by the Flyers in the first round, maybe it didn’t matter who the Penguins faced last season in that their early postseason exit was inevitable.

Conley: All about the matchup. The Penguins took the regular season series from the Rangers 4-2. Ditto the Bruins (3-1-0), Capitals (2-1-1) and Panthers (3-1-0), and split their series’ with the Devils (3-3-0) and Senators (2-2). The Flyers were the only East playoff team of a year ago to have a winning record against the Penguins (4-2-0).

That’s not to say another team couldn’t have beaten them. In fact, the losses now are definitely indicative of problems that first surfaced late last year and were loudly exploited by a fast, smart Flyers team (as in the Pens outscoring teams as opposed to actually outplaying them, as I mentioned before). The Flyers had the formula for success against the Pens before anyone else, and now we’re seeing other teams implement that game plan. It was definitely the worst possible matchup they could have drawn. But as we’ve seen in the losses this year, clubs are taking cues from the Flyers — pressuring the Pens into making bad plays, capitalizing on their turnovers and slamming the door shut on Bylsma’s infuriating faith in the stretch pass. The Pens like to talk ad nauseum about “getting to their game.” Opposing teams are starting to get to the Pens’ game regularly. These things do have a shelf life.

At this point, the book is out on how to beat the Pens. It only took two games to figure out the new power play, which after Wednesday’s practice had Malkin on the point and James Neal back to the position where he scored 18 power play goals last season. Still, the other elements of their game — high-risk puck retrieval, using the boards to make the tip-pass deep into the offensive zone, the blue line power-play drop pass — all those things have been figured out. Simply showing up and competing at a level commensurate to their opponents would be a good place to start, but there need to be serious, systemic changes to the breakout and power play if they ever plan to adjust to the clubs which have already adjusted to them.

Keefe: I hope John Tortorella has time to read this before Thursday’s game as you give away the Penguins’ never-changing game plan because the Rangers haven’t defeated the Penguins since Jan. 6, 2012 and have lost the last five matchups.

On Tuesday night, the Islanders’ Colin McDonald became the second player suspended by Brendan Shanahan this season when he ran the Penguins’ Ben Lovejoy from behind.

Matt Cooke has been suspended five times (four with the Penguins), including the first round of the 2010-11 playoffs for his ridiculous actions. Cooke changed his game following that suspension and played in all 82 games last season, the first time he had done so in nine years, and scored a career-high 19 goals and posted his highest points total (38) in nine years as well. He also recorded a career low in penalty minutes with 44.

If someone started watching hockey and the Penguins in 2011-12 for the first time, they would have thought Cooke was an effective player and a great secondary scoring option for the Penguins. But for anyone who watched Cooke was prior to last season, it seems unfathomable that he could completely change his style of play and not be the most dangerous and reckless player in the league.

To me, Matt Cooke will always be the guy extending his elbow after hitting Marc Savard in the head or the guy who created the textbook video for boarding when he rocked Fedor Tyutin from behind. But that doesn’t mean that’s the case for everyone.

What do you think of Cooke now and what’s your perception of his style of his play pre-2011-12 and post-2011-12?

Conley: The change certainly seems to be genuine. The players obviously have great respect for Ray Shero, and I can’t imagine a more influential voice in all of hockey than Mario Lemieux. Both of them laid out an ultimatum for Cooke. Cooke’s obviously an intelligent player and person, so it’s not unfathomable that he could make that change.

I think for a lot of guys, that style of play used to be their ticket into the league. It almost became Cooke’s ticket out. Every player is doing what he needs to do to stick, whether it’s score goals, block shots or fight and piss people off. For Cooke, the agitator role was his meal ticket. The culture of the game changed, so he had to change with it.

For fans who only see Cooke a few times a year, that reputation is going to precede the player. Maybe that’s why no one thought Cooke could reinvent his game at his age. But I think being a little older played to his advantage, being experienced enough to know what was at stake. The reputation before his suspensions was obviously awful, and at least in Pittsburgh the shift in his style was a big story last year. I don’t know how he’s perceived league-wide, or whether all is forgiven, but anyone who can’t acknowledge that he has adapted and adopted a cleaner style is probably still a little salty about his past.

Blogs • Rangers

Jan 18, 2013

Ready for Rick Nash and the Rangers

The NHL is finally back this weekend after feeling like it may never come back.

The last time Gary Bettman took hockey away from me I was a freshman in college. I would sit at the Capitol Coffee House at the top of Bowdoin Street, crushing the best bacon, egg and cheese in Boston and stare at the top of the ShawmutFleetCenterTDBanknorthGardenTDGarden and wonder how Bettman could do this to me now that I was living just a half of a mile from where NHL hockey normally took place.

For the first three-plus months of this season, Bettman tried to take hockey away from me again, and nearly succeeded by getting to the doorstep of canceling another full season. And because Bettman enjoys a good lockout the way I enjoy actually watching hockey, I knew entering the holidays that I would need the New York Football Giants to carry me through January to leave only the 28 days of February as the gap between sports I’m passionate about because there was a good chance the 2012-13 NHL season was gone. But the Giants didn’t cooperate and embarrassed themselves in the process, reverting back to their 2009 and 2010 ways and setting the franchise back following a Super Bowl season in a way only the Giants could. The Giants left me searching for a way to get through the cold winter months before spring training (or the period I refer to as the 59 Days Before Baseball) and March Madness and it was either finally start watching Mad Men or Parks and Recreation religiously or hope that something would come from one of the NHL/NHLPA marathon meetings. I chose the latter and put my faith in Bettman, Bill Daly (his sidekick who cares equally as little about the fans) and Donald Fehr (who at times thought he was only in the meetings to later tell the media how much Bettman sucks).

I began doubting the NHL would ever come back and even if it did, would I ever care about it the same way again? After the way it destroyed me in 2004-05, I wasn’t sure if I would be able to go through that pain again knowing that in just a few more years I would likely be in the same spot again as long as Bettman remains commissioner.

I woke up on Jan. 6 to find out the lockout had ended while I was busy sleeping and dreaming of goals like this and moments like this. Looking back I wish I had gone into a celebration combination of Theo Fleury and Teemu Selanne. I thought I would act like either of those two if the lockout ever ended, but I didn’t have much room to roll around or a stick handy to shoot down a glove that I also didn’t have. Instead I just accepted the news like I had known it was going to happen the way John Carpenter did when Regis Philbin told him he won $1 million.

We’re one day away from hockey being back and the Rangers being back for the first time since Memorial Day Weekend. We’re one day away from John Tortorella treating the media like spitters and from Stan Fischler’s postgame questioning deserving of being treated like a spitter. We’re one day away from Brian Boyle getting too much playing time and Marian Gaborik getting unnecessarily benched with the Rangers trailing. We’re one day away from Michael Del Zotto trying to be Bobby Orr on the power play and from Dan Girardi missing the net from the point. We’re one day away from Sam Rosen giving Henrik Lundqvist credit for a save on a shot he didn’t touch and from Joe Micheletti talking about the “quick release” of every player on the ice. We’re one day away from having Hank back in our lives and Rick Nash officially in our lives. We’re one day away from hockey and two weeks ago I didn’t think we would be here.

To set the scene for Saturday’s NHL Opening Day, I thought I would dissect John Tortorella’s interview on Wednesday with Mike Francesa on WFAN. Tortorella and Francesa talked over 20 minutes and usually it takes 20 seconds of talking for Tortorella to say something worthy of analyzing, so there was plenty to go around after 20 minutes.

On the shape the players are in.

“There are some guys you can see that are in really good shape and other guys are trying to find their way and other guys there’s quite a bit of work to do.”

I think by the end of the first period on Saturday we will know which players fit into Tortorella’s three categories. But if not by the end of the first period then certainly during the third period when the fatigue of 60 minutes of hockey will begin to set in and Gaborik’s legs will start to fall to a gear not seen since Mark Recchi left the league two years ago. It won’t take long to find out which players that weren’t playing overseas or in the AHL were still getting their work in and which ones were treating the lockout like Figawi.

On the usage of Henrik Lundqvist in the shortened season.

“I think once of the biggest things we’ve found with Hank is when he starts getting sloppy and we can see when he starts getting sloppy and he’s not practicing the proper way because he’s playing so many games and he’s so tired during the practice days, his game tends to slip.”

Two years ago the Rangers didn’t have a backup goalie for nearly the entire second half of the season so Henrik Lundqvist had to play every game or they wouldn’t have made the playoffs. They made the playoffs on the final day of the season and then were out of the playoffs after five games against the Capitals. It wasn’t because of Lundqvist, it was because they couldn’t score. Lundqvist was still sharp in the series against Washington despite playing in 68 games that year.

Since his rookie season, Lundqvist has played in 53, 70, 72, 70, 73, 68 and 62 games. He has been outstanding for all seven seasons, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he posted his best numbers in 2011-12 (39-18-5, 1.97, .929) in the season he played the least amount of games. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that he won the Vezina in the same season he played the least amount of games or that the Rangers went to the conference finals in the season he played the least amount of games.

The problem is with only 48 games, it’s going to be hard to get Lundqvist rest. Andy Brickley likes to talk about how “points are a premium” at the end of the year (though someone should tell Brick that all the games are worth the same amount of points) and that’s in a normal year. This year is anything, but normal and that’s why Lundqvist has to play just about every single game. Thanks, Hank. I owe you one.

On getting off to a fast start.

“I think we need to win all 48 games … I want to win every game right away.”

Joe Girardi might think John Tortorella is nuts for trying to win every game, but I think it’s a good plan. The Rangers will play their 48 games in 99 days and in their seven January games they will see face Boston twice, Pittsburgh twice, Philadelphia twice and Toronto once. Those seven games will happen in 12 days, including two sets of back-to-backs. Again, that’s seven games in the first 12 days of the year! This is going to be fun, but it’s also going to be a mess, which leads us to…

On how the game will be impacted by the layoff.

“In the two end zones I think there’s going to be more penalties. I think that’s where the level of conditioning is not there right now.”

Tortorella used the word “sloppy” a few times during the interview to go along with this quote, which to me screams, “Turnovers!” And when you think of sloppy play and turnovers and penalties you think of goals. And when you think of goals you think of overs! I have never bet an over in an NHL game in my life, but that might change as early as Saturday. (Unless Vegas wants to start throwing some 6.5 over/unders out there.)

If Tortorella is right about the excessive penalties then that means power plays. The Rangers’ power play has been their downfall for as long as I can remember. At times it’s comical that any company would want to sponsor a Rangers power play and have their brand and name associated with such a disaster, but I think it’s going to be different this season. Why? Because of this guy…

On the Rangers’ outlook after getting Rick Nash.

“I think a big step for our team this year is to handle the expectations. We make the Nash deal and a lot of people think we take the next step as an organization and rightfully so.”

I’m still excited for Rangers fans not as familiar with Rick Nash to see him play the way I envy anyone about to watch Friday Night Lights or Game of Thrones for the first time. There’s a reason Nash played on the first line for Team Canada at the 2010 Olympics and why I was willing to give up the farm and then some for him last February and why I pleaded with WFAN’s Steve Somers to come around and see things from my perspective. Rick Nash is that good and starting Saturday he will finally have something to play for in a city worth playing for.

On the Rangers’ expectations this season.

“We’re going to play our style. Our team will be ready to play, but a lot of things have to happen right and a number of things happened right last year and it always doesn’t during a year.”

Tortorella just keeps setting me up. My biggest thing with wanting Rick Nash so, so, so, so, so, so badly was that the Rangers are built to win right now. Sure, they are also set up nicely for the future with a young core and defense, but they are really built to win right now. And I mean right now as in last year and now this year and next year. Prior to last season the Rangers hadn’t been out of the first round of the playoffs since 2007-08 and they hadn’t been to the conference finals since 1996-97. Chances like last year don’t come around all the time (unless you’re the Red Wings) and Henrik Lundqvist isn’t going to be in his prime forever. How many years are the Rangers willing to sacrifice of Lundqvist’s prime before going all in? Thankfully, the answer is now zero because of the deal for Nash.

Tortorella’s most telling line in the whole interview was that “it always doesn’t during a year” when it comes to things happening right. The Rangers won a lot of one-goal games and had a lot of bounces go their way in the regular season (I mean a lot of bounces) and things only got even better for them in the postseason, winning two Game 7s and overcoming multiple-goal deficits and completing last-second comebacks. Those breaks aren’t always going to go your way, so let’s just hope the Nash move didn’t come one season to late.

On the media picking the Rangers as a contender.

“I don’t care what people are picking. I’m not one of those guys to get involved in that. We’re going to go about it one day at a time and we’ll see where we land as we go through this.”

Ah, there’s the John Tortorella we know. Now if only Larry Brooks had asked him this question maybe I would have had the opportunity to write “(expletive)” when transcribing.

On if the Rangers can win the Stanley Cup.

“Before you can win, you need to believe that you are going to win.”

Two years ago when the Rangers were hoping to beat the Capitals in the quarterfinals without scoring a goal you could just sense that the team knew that if Lundqvist didn’t post a shutout then they were most likely not going to win. And if Lundqvist gave up one goal then they definitely weren’t going to win. But last postseason you saw a team that took the ice believing it could win and believing it could win even without scoring the first goal of the game.

A lot has changed for the Rangers since the Capitals silenced the Bruce Boudreau chants at MSG and embarrassed a fan base. After that series it felt like Henrik Lundqvist would one day raise his number 30 to the Garden rafters without a Cup to his name like Don Mattingly putting his number 23 in Monument Park without a World Series. It doesn’t feel like that anymore.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • NHL

Jun 13, 2012

The NHL Season That Was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the eff happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs • NHL • Team USA

Feb 25, 2010

Heavenly Hockey

Thirty years after the original “Miracle on Ice,” one game separates Team USA and the gold-medal game and a chance at history.

This column was originally published on WFAN.com on Feb. 25, 2010.

If you like hockey, then you liked Wednesday. And even if you don’t like hockey, chances are that you probably watched it at some point on Wednesday because it was on for 11 1/2 straight hours. Hockey had its version of March Madness, and in this case, the Elite Eight. Aside from not being able to watch three of the four games in high definition, it was a perfect day for a hockey fan. It was a day I didn’t want to see end, and on Sunday it will be a tournament that I wish didn’t have to disappear for four years. But if Gary Bettman has his way, the magic of Wednesday won’t ever return.

Between trying to decide if Pierre McGuire’s tenure as a “sideline” reporter between the benches has been a bigger failure than the FoxTrax puck was, and wondering if the over 2 ½ will hit on how many times Eddie Olczyk says “active sticks” during the USA game (it went under, he only said it once), I tried to imagine watching Olympic hockey without NHL players and I couldn’t.

Since allowing NHL players to participate in the Olympics in 1998, the decision has been the only one the game deserves credit for in recent years. Now the league is prepared to tell their fans – the ones they have left – that the Olympics will have to do without NHL players in the future because the league is losing too much money during the two-week layoff.

Gary Bettman isn’t exactly crushing it in approval rating and he is certainly isn’t winning any popularity contests. The same man who has watched two teams relocate from Canada during his tenure as commissioner is now ready to destroy the best thing the game has going for it.

With Bettman at the helm, fighting has been basically taken out of the game thanks to the instigator rule, a trapezoid has been painted behind the net and two-line passing has been allowed. He contemplated changing the size of the net, first allowed goalies to expand the size of their equipment and then created restrictions for them. He permitted the change of the overtime format to 4-on-4 and OK’ed shootouts deciding games and playoff berths. He let the Sabres change their colors to red and black before they changed them back, and then there was that time where the NHL didn’t play for an entire season. If people cared about hockey then Bettman might have to answer for his decisions. But no one cares enough to make a stand because Bettman chased away casual fans, and the only fans remaining are those that would watch the NHL no matter what type of mud Bettman drags it through.

It didn’t have to be like this and it doesn’t have to continue to be like this. I can’t remember the last time people I wouldn’t expect to be excited about hockey were this excited. Team USA’s resurgence, and the overall talent level of the tournament has casual fans finding out that there are other stars in the sport than Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin. Even if those fans missed entire first periods because they were trying to find out what NBC ancillary channel the Olympics relegated hockey to, they have still become attracted to the game. There is a throng of new hockey fans with a desire to watch a sport that can use as many fans as it can get. And the commissioner who has spent the last six-plus years trying to attract new audiences is ready to deprive his newest fans of the reason they watched hockey in the first place.

On Monday I wrote about how Americans were interested in how Team USA would perform in the tournament, and mainly how they would perform against Team Canada. Well, according to the New York Times, the USA-Canada game matched MSNBC’s election-night viewership and was the most-watched sports program in Canadian history. It was a non-elimination game and it had more viewers in both countries than Game 7 of last season’s Stanley Cup final, in which the game’s biggest star was playing against one of the game’s most popular teams.

Did NBC do the NHL – its business partner – an injustice by not airing important preliminary games and even the Canada-Russia quarterfinal on its main station? Yes. If the games were on NBC, more people would have stumbled upon them while looking for The Office or 30 Rock, but the amount of positive exposure the NHL has received during the tournament can’t be rivaled by anything the league has done itself to increase popularity.

Maybe the NHL and the television networks of future Olympics can work out a marketing partnership or the networks can promise to put the intriguing matchups on their No. 1 channel in place of the biathlon or ski jumping or curling. If the NHL is so hung up on trying to make money off the Olympics rather than letting the Olympics work its magic for the NHL, then OK, find a business strategy that works. Just don’t sacrifice the participation of NHL players as that strategy.

The Olympics deserve the best hockey players from each country and that means NHLers. NHL-filled rosters offer an experience for viewers that isn’t duplicated at any other time. Sure, there is the IIHF World Championship each year, but that takes place during the NHL playoffs, so many of the top players aren’t available, and those who are usually decline to play. Amateur lineups would create a tournament similar to the World Junior Championships, and teams like the United States and Canada would be at a disadvantage against the European teams that include former NHL players currently playing in the KHL or European elite leagues.

The uniqueness of the event creates a bond among each country’s fans that rarely happens. The tournament allows for fans of NHL rivals like the Rangers and Devils to pull for each other’s players in the same way Yankees fans are asked to pull for Red Sox, and Mets fans for Phillies with home-field in the World Series on the line at the MLB All-Star Game. There aren’t too many times Rangers fans hope Zach Parise scores a goal and hope Henrik Lundqvist gives one up. For a week, Devils fans are allowed to hate Martin Brodeur and love Chris Drury.

Most importantly, NHL players in the Olympics just makes for better hockey.

Yes, the two-week break and lack of an All-Star Game is costing the NHL money today, but maybe Bettman doesn’t see what this tournament is doing for tomorrow and the future of the game. The Winter Classic is nice, but it’s not doing the trick, and the only thing that could get the game back on the map in the United States would be an American star equivalent in talent to Crosby or Ovechkin. The Olympics are doing a job that Bettman has tried to do since he cancelled the 2004-05 season, and no one cares that there wasn’t an All-Star Game or a skills competition this February. Fans want to see competitive hockey games with the world’s best players. They don’t want – or need – to see Zdeno Chara skate untouched and put all his weight into a slap shot that goes into an open net at 103 mph. Fans want to watch Olympic hockey with NHL players. They can live without the All-Star Game and its festivities once every four years.

Right now, there is a buzz in the hockey world following Canada’s rout of Russia and Slovakia’s upset of Sweden. United States fans are anxious for Friday’s semifinal against Finland and sports media outlets are asking whether or not Team USA can knock off Team Canada twice in the same week if they meet again. Players like Ryan Miller and Patrick Kane are watching their stock rise thanks to national television exposure. It has all contributed to one very pleasant surprise because when was the last time the talk anywhere focused on hockey?

If Team USA takes home the gold, it will be the perfect ending to a perfect tournament, and will do wonders for the final weeks of the NHL season. I suggest you watch because it might never be the same again.

Blogs • NHL • Team USA

Feb 22, 2010

Digging for Gold

Team USA’s 5-3 win over Canada sent a message to the hockey world four years after the U.S. was embarrassed in the Olympics.

This column was originally published on WFAN.com on Feb. 22, 2010.

Mike Milbury predicted that Team USA would lose to Canada in Sunday night’s pregame show. At that point, I knew that an upset was assured because, let’s be honest, when has Mike Milbury ever been right?

It’s hard to remember Milbury ever having been right as general manager of the Islanders. He wasn’t right when he drafted Rick DiPietro ahead of Dany Heatley and Marian Gaborik, and traded Roberto Luongo. Or when he traded Zdeno Chara and the second pick in the 2001 draft (Jason Spezza) for Alexei Yashin. During his time with the Islanders, Milbury compiled a long list of questionable and controversial decisions in his quest to become the worst GM in hockey history. He was wrong again on Sunday night when he picked against his own country.

After letting a 1-4-1 performance in 2006 resonate for four years, Team USA made wholesale changes for 2010. General manager Brian Burke scrapped the entire ’06 roster except for Chris Drury and Brian Rafalski, choosing youth and inexperience to replace the face of USA hockey. Burke skirted conventional wisdom by replacing the team’s core of Mike Modano, Keith Tkachuk, Bill Guerin and Doug Weight. On Sunday night in Vancouver, Burke’s moves paid off in a game Eddie Olczyk referred to as “tremendously tremendous.”

Doc Emrick isn’t used to seeing Martin Brodeur get lit up, and he probably can’t recall a two-goal game from Brian Rafalski’s tenure with the Devils. These two factors — Brodeur’s shakiness and Rafalski’s offensive outburst — contributed to Team USA’s first win over Canada since 1960. Team USA entered Sunday’s main event at plus 250 on the money line. They left with all of Canada calling for Roberto Luongo to replace Brodeur in Tuesday’s quarterfinal qualifier.

Ron Wilson’s club won in exactly the manner that Burke envisioned they could when he selected the next wave of American talent. Burke built the current squad with an emphasis on speed and goaltending, and it was enough to drop a Canadian team that outshot the Americans 45-23. Team USA limited their mistakes, stayed disciplined and remained out of the box, and Ryan Miller did his best Jim Craig impersonation with a 42-save performance. Team USA was outplayed and outshot by a roster that perhaps no Americans other than Patrick Kane or Zach Parise would crack, but they stuck to Wilson’s system and capitalized on the few opportunities they were afforded.

The win was the most significant for Team USA in Olympic competition since the second Herb Brooks-led team knocked off Russia in the 2002 semifinals. The game created interest in the young club for the American people, and the winning result has turned that interest into an attachment. People now seem to care about the team’s outcome in Vancouver, and this wouldn’t have been the case had Ryan Miller played more like Martin Brodeur. The dream of achieving gold in the tournament for the first time in 30 years has hockey back in the spotlight, and it’s going to be a challenge to sustain the current hype around the team and the sport.

Gary Bettman would love for that enthusiasm to carry past the end of the week and into the stretch run of the NHL season, however, just keeping Americans attached for this week is a step in the right direction. It might be wishful thinking to believe that Team USA can bring the game back to where it was prior to the 2004-05 lockout, but it seems to be a possibility, at least for the moment. Team USA has a chance to change the landscape of hockey in the United States, and give the NHL the boost of interest the league has unsuccessfully tried to achieve through rules changes, marketing and the Winter Classic.

An upset of Canada and the revival of American hockey in the Olympics won’t carry as much weight if Team USA falls in quarterfinal action or loses to Canada in a possible rematch. Team USA knocked off the favorites on their home ice. They have proven they can play with — and beat — any team in the tournament, and in doing so, they have made the goal medal game their end game. If Sunday’s win was their last of the 2010 Games, this last week of perfect hockey from Team USA will be a letdown.

Many hoped that after the 2006 debacle, Team USA would contend for a medal game in the tournament, though no one truly expected them to beat Canada and earn the No. 1 seed for the playoff round. As long as the Americans didn’t bow out the way they did four years ago, it would have been a successful trip to Vancouver. The expectations changed on Sunday, and now it’s up to this Team USA to show America and the world that they aren’t the same team that won only once — against Kazakhstan, no less — in the ’06 Games. It’s up to them to prove to Sidney Crosby that Sunday’s 5-3 win wasn’t “just one game.”

A week ago Team USA was hoping to avoid embarrassment and provide a respectable showing in Vancouver. Now they are the top seed in the tournament and three wins away from achieving Olympic glory, and improving the outlook on the game for the entire country.

Let’s just hope Mike Milbury doesn’t decide to jump on the Team USA bandwagon.