fbpx

Tag: Henrik Lundqvist

Blogs • Email Exchanges

May 3, 2013

Kentucky Derby Predictions

The Kentucky Derby is Saturday and the Rangers lost Game 1 of the quarterfinals, so it’s the perfect time for an email exchange with Brian Monzo.

The Kentucky Derby is Saturday and the Rangers lost Game 1 of the quarterfinals to the Capitals 3-1. Those two things make a perfect storm for an email exchange with WFAN producer Brian Monzo as we head into a wild weekend in sports. So I bothered Monzo for his thoughts on who he likes in this year’s Derby and what happened on Thursday night in Washington.

Keefe: I have been waiting for you to pay the invoice I sent you on the money you owe me for telling me to pick Alpha in the 2012 Kentucky Derby without even a mention of I’ll Have Another, but since that money will never arrive, I have decided to bother you about this year’s Derby instead. But just so you know, my little sister told me to pick I’ll Have Another. My little sister. And here you are, the expert who loves TVG more than hockey missing out on a 15-to-1 horse.

You have been feeding me Derby information for a few days now, but when it comes down to it in a race this unpredictable, it’s all about the name. Right now I can tell you Itsmyluckyday (10-to-1 on Sportsbook) and Will Take Charge (25-to-1 on Sportsbook) are two names that stand out to me.

I know you’re all about Revolutionary (5-to-1 on Sportsbook) because you have been telling me so all week, so tell me why Revolutionary isn’t going to be this year’s Alpha.

Monzo: You bring up some great points. Regarding Alpha, it should be noted that he went out to win the Jim Dandy and the Travers at Saratoga last summer, but yes, he didn’t run well in the Kentucky Derby. Yes, you did approach me before the race and asked about I’ll Have Another. Good job by your little sister.

Anyway, this is a really tough race to handicap. This class of horses is good, not great and trying to find the best of “good” horses is pretty tough. When I look at this race, with these horses, the way I handicap the race is by places the horses where they will go in the race and envision how the race will go.

When all is said and done, I’ve decided to go with Revolutionary as my top pick, with many horses very close.

Revolutionary is trained by Todd Pletcher and is coming off an impressive win in the Louisiana Derby. What I liked about that race was that he came off the pace and fought off a late challenge from Mylute, another horse he’ll face in the Derby. That race showed me that this horse doesn’t back down from challenges and isn’t afraid of other horses. He looked like he was going to get beat and he beared down and held for the win. Some horses will buckle and let another horse take it. He didn’t.

He drew the third post for the Derby, which isn’t great, but not awful. It should allow him to get to a position in the race he’s comfortable with. If he runs to the lead, throw your ticket out. If he stays within five to six lengths of the lead, no matter how quick or slow the pace is, he should find himself in a position to run down the leaders down the stretch. My guess is he goes off at 9-1. (He’s currently 5-to-1 on Sportsbook.)

I also love the fact that he has Calvin Borel on him. Like Borel or not, he’s a big race rider and his history in the Kentucky Derby is solid. His win with Street Sense was one of the best rides in Kentucky Derby history.

Orb is another horse I expect to run well. He closed well in the Florida Derby and will likely be the post time favorite on Saturday. Verrazano, another Pletcher horse, will be going to the lead and even though he’s undefeated, this is a tough race to hold with speed.

Since the two horses you mentioned were Itsmyluckyday and Will Take Charge, I’ll give you my thoughts on them.

I didn’t love how Itsmyluckyday ran in the Florida Derby. It was a slow race and Orb blew right by him.

Will Take Charge has been on my radar since February. His wins in the Smarty Jones and the Rebel really caught my eye. He doesn’t have a ton of speed, but if he can stay four lengths from the lead, I can see him tracking down the leaders in the final 100 yards. He is 3-for-7. He likes to win and I think he’ll go off at 30-1. I’m not making him my top choice, but I will play a small amount on him to win and will have him on many trifecta tickets.

Keefe: You mentioned Orb and how well he did at the Florida Derby and Verrazano and how he’s undefeated. Orb along with Verrazano are currently the two favorites on Sportsbook.

Last year everyone was all over Bodemeister and it was pretty much a given that he would win and it looked like he would before I’ll Have Another came out of nowhere to take the Derby. And last year it was Bodemeister and Union Rags getting all the attention before the Derby and now it seems like Orb and Verrazano should be garnering the same attention with the Derby so close on the calendar.

Why aren’t these two horses getting as much attention despite being the favorites? Why is the class of horses only “good” and not “great?” And what’s the difference between this year’s Derby and last year?

Monzo: That’s the thing though and the beauty of the Derby. A horse at 9-to-2 or 5-to-1 could be the favorite. There are now 19 horses in the race with Black Onyx scratching out on Friday morning. I’d say 14 of the 19 have a shot to win. It’s mostly about having the best trip and not being the best horse to win. Last year Bodemeister was the best horse to run, as was Went The Day Well. I’ll Have Another had a perfect trip and was able to catch Bodemeister late.

Orb is a good horse and has won 4-of 7, but I worry that his last race was too slow. He has a good closing kick and should be there when the dust settles, but I will put on my exotics tickets, not as a winner.

Verrazano is a speed horse who has run really well. He is undefeated, going 4-for-4, but running a 1 1/4 miles is a tough thing to do, especially running to the lead. Bodemeister ran as good as anyone on the lead, but couldn’t hold it. I don’t think Verrazano will win, but has a good shot of holding onto a top four spot, which is why I’m leaving him on my superfecta tickets.

There isn’t one horse that is that much better then the rest of the field. Also, not of these horses has run an epic eye opening race. Some very good races (Revolutionary in the Withers, Orb in the Florida Derby, Verrazano in the Wood), but none were extraordinary.

I’m not sure there’s much of a difference from last year. One thing that’s different if Bob Baffert, who trained Bodemeister and is a legendary trainer has no horses in the race. Todd Pletcher has five horses in the race, which is pretty crazy.

Will Take Charge is my value horse. Trained by D. Wayne Lukas with veteran jockey Jon Court on the mount, Will Take Charge has the winning instinct to pull off an upset here. He won the Rebel in March and Smarty Jones in January, as well as his maiden race in October at Keeneland. To me, the win in the Rebel showed this horse’s ability to have enough left in the tank late to chase down leaders. I don’t think he has the talent to come back from 16 lengths to win, but if he can stay four to five lengths wide throughout the race and can find a way to be two lengths off with 200 yards to go, he’ll have a fighting chance. He should carry a huge price tag too, maybe close to 30-to-1, which is a huge value play.

Revolutionary is my top pick, however. I just think the race will open up for him late. Book it.

Keefe: OK, I’m booking it. Let’s hope this goes better than it did a year ago. Now let’s talk about what happened on Thursday night in Washington.

Some people stupidly want to blame Henrik Lundqvist for the Rangers’ Game 1 loss, which to me is as ridiculous as it has been to blame any loss on him during his tenure with the Rangers. I blame the Rangers’ inability to score and their lack of discipline.

The Rangers entered the series with two goals: 1. Contain Alexander Ovechkin and 2. Limit the Capitals power-play opportunities. In Game 1, Ovechkin tied the game at 1 and the Rangers took six penalties against the Capitals, including a too-many-men-on-the-ice penalty just 34 seconds into the game. So much for accomplishing those two goals. And on top of those problems, I’m not sure what Ryan McDonagh and Dan Girardi were doing on the Capitals’ second goal when they let a full-ice pass split them for a Marcus Johansson breakaway goal.

I picked the Rangers in 5 and that pick is as good as done because after what we saw in Game 1 this Capitals team is much different than the team the Rangers narrowly beat in seven games a year ago and it’s barely the same Capitals team we saw last against the Rangers on March 24. The Rangers aren’t going to win four games in a row, so I’m OK with my pick being wrong. Let’s just hope they can win four games at all.

Monzo: Blaming Lundqvist is stupid. Like I said on Twitter, if he was the Penguins goalie they would go 82-0 and sweep every playoff series. He gets little goal support in the playoffs.

I took the Rangers in 5 as well and I’m content with that not happening now. I actually took some good things from the game. Carl Hagelin looked good and Chris Kreider looked good and Steve Eminger actually played physical.

I also think Ryane Clowe was missed because of the space he creates in the offensive zone. I think even the great Brian Boyle could be an asset here with his big body. And I noticed the Rangers often pass way too much, but when they shoot, they miss the net. (Brad Richards!) The Rangers need to fire more shots on Braden Holtby. He gives up a ton of rebounds and if they crash the net, they should be able to bang a few pucks in.

They need to improve on hitting the net and crashing the net. They also need to stay disciplined and not take penalties. They PK is good enough to hold off the Caps, but they can’t be giving the Caps six power players a game.

Rangers in 6.

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

May 2, 2013

Rangers-Capitals Now a Playoff Tradition

It’s the fourth Rangers-Capitals playoff series in five years and that calls for an email exchange with Kevin Klein of Japers’ Rink.

It’s the third day of the NHL playoffs and the Rangers have yet to play a game. At this point it feels like the fourth Rangers-Capitals series in five years might never start, but then again maybe it’s a good thing that they waited until Thursday since there won’t be two days off between games at any point in the series.

Kevin Klein of Japers’ Rink joined me for an email exchange to talk about the Rangers-Capitals series and how Adam Oates brought the Capitals back to prominence and how the new head coach was able to get Alex Ovechkin back into the conversation of “Best Player in the World.” We also give our predictions for the series.

Keefe: Four years ago, I was petrified of the idea of a Rangers-Capitals series, and my worrying was proved right when the Rangers blew a 3-1 series lead.

Two years ago, I didn’t expect anything good to come from a Rangers-Capitals series with a Rangers team that couldn’t score and found their way into the playoffs on the last day of the season thanks to some outside help. Again, the Capitals had their way with the Rangers in five games and embarrassed the MSG crowd by erasing a three-goal, third-period deficit while silencing the Bruce Boudreau chants.

Last year, I wanted no part of the Capitals in the first round and no part of them in the playoffs at all. It wasn’t the same Capitals team from 2008-09, but even with a new look and style of play they forced the No. 1-seeded Rangers to a seventh game and if it weren’t for some late-game heroics from the Rangers in the series they would have eliminated the Rangers once again.

This year I feel lucky the Rangers are playing the Capitals. I’m not sure if it’s because the other two options would have been the Penguins and Canadiens, who have both dominated the Rangers in recent years, or if it’s because the Rangers were finally able to eliminate the Capitals last year. Then again, it’s never good to get a good feeling about the Rangers, especially when it comes to the postseason and who their first-round opponent might be. So before we pick this series apart piece by piece prior to Game 1, maybe you can help bring me back to reality and why I shouldn’t feel so confident about the Rangers getting the Capitals in the quarterfinals and feeling like everything magically fell into place for the Rangers over the weekend.

Klein: It’s funny you should feel lucky to face this year’s Capitals, when you feared last year’s.

This year’s Capitals boast the most lethal power play in the NHL (by more than two full percentage points) and Alex Ovechkin is back to his old self, racking up 32 goals in 48 games. Two years ago, when the Capitals ousted the Rangers in the first round, Ovechkin had 32 goals in 79 games. It’s certainly worth noting that Ovechkin’s resurgence would not have been possible without his running mate, Nicklas Backstrom, who returned to form in time with Ovi, to the tune of 40 assists in 48 games (good enough for third in the league and only three helpers off the league lead). I’ll also add that Troy Brouwer and Mike Ribeiro are having career years on the second line, so once Ovi and Backstrom hop back onto the bench, the Rangers still have their work cut out for them.

Dropping back to the blue line, last season the Rangers had the luxury of facing off against Roman Hamrlik and Jeff Schultz, two defensemen who – as you well know by now in the case of Hamrlik – aren’t exactly known for their mobility these days. It’s my presumption that Schultz and Hamrlik will be watching the games together from the Verizon Center and Madison Square Garden press boxes, a fact that most singularly improves this Capitals team over last year’s squad.

But the Capitals’ improvements never would have occurred if not for the mind of the man behind the bench. Indeed, it was Adam Oates who redesigned the power play, taking it from the middle of the pack to the pinnacle of the league. Indeed, it was Adam Oates who envisioned Ovechkin on the right wing, where he has since re-established himself as the league’s premier goal scorer. And indeed, it was Adam Oates who was standing behind the New Jersey bench last year when the Devils ushered the top-seeded Rangers unceremoniously into the offseason.

These are the reasons why you should perhaps not feel so confident. This isn’t to say that I feel confident about the Capitals’ chances against a Rangers team that played very well down the stretch, but rather to illuminate that this Capitals team should be a more fearsome opponent than last season’s.

Keefe: OK, well I just went from overly confident to terrified. Thanks?

When it comes to Roman Hamrlik, I can understand what you mean since I’m not sure how the Rangers thought the Capitals’ trash would become their reward when it comes to a 39-year-old defenseman with as many miles (1,395 regular-season games and 111 playoff games) as Hamrlik has. The man played in his first NHL game in 1992! 1992! Sure, Jaromir Jagr is still playing and he played in his first game in 1990, but he’s Jaromir Jagr and he’s playing an elite level for a 41-year-old (35 points in 45 regular-season games).

You’re right, I should be worried about Ovechkin wanting to once again be in the “Best Player in the World” conversation again and the way he has responded to Adam Oates’ coaching. With Bruce Boudreau it seemed like Ovechkin was allowed to do whatever he wanted (and rightfully so I would say), but it got to the point where Boudreau’s style became stale, not only with Ovechkin, but the entire team. With Dale Hunter, the way Ovechkin had played his entire life was changed and it took away from what makes him who he is and why he’s great. But with Oates it seems like Ovechkin finally has a coach with the right balance. And Oates’ success behind the Capitals’ bench is intriguing especially since it seems so easy for fans to respect and appreciate someone like him. Here in New York it’s not as easy to respect and appreciate John Tortorella.

How refreshing has it been to have Oates as the head coach of the Capitals?

Klein: I think that just about everyone inside of, around and in the peripherals of the Washington Capitals organization has come to the realization that Adam Oates is the best thing that’s happened to this franchise in quite awhile. Not to beat a dead horse here, but it absolutely starts with Alex Ovechkin.

In hindsight, Alex probably had a decent relationship with Bruce Boudreau that slowly degraded as the team began to struggle. We know that he didn’t have the best of relationships with Dale Hunter, and that’s because Hunter stymied Ovechkin in his insistence that Ovechkin take on the same roles and responsibilities of, say, a guy like Hunter did during his playing days.

When Oates came aboard, he embraced the idea of Ovechkin as the chassis for the Capitals vehicle. From the get-go he saw the potential for success under such a model, so long as Ovechkin was open to some considerable tweaks in his game. Oates immediately established a communicative, two-way relationship with his captain and Ovechkin has responded brilliantly. Now Oates has a happy captain, a happy locker room and inside that locker room there is a sense of trust and harmony that has been absent for a couple of years now.

It was by no means a caustic environment before, but it certainly was not as cohesive as it is now, and I attribute that coming together to Adam Oates.

Keefe: Well you’re lucky. Here we have a coach who feels entitled because of what he did in Tampa Bay nine years ago and doesn’t care that in four years here he has made it out of the first round once, made it to the playoffs twice and missed them completely the other time … despite having the best goalie in the world in his prime. No big deal.

Last season, and even the season before, Ovechkin wasn’t the same Ovechkin we had grown accustomed to. It seemed like years since a real debate could be had between who was between Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby and his postseason play wasn’t the same either. Now he’s back to pre-2010-11 Ovechkin and alone could be enough to eliminate the Rangers with the way they go into scoring slumps for extended periods of time and take untimely and undisciplined penalties.

Earlier in the season there was speculation that maybe Ovechkin needed a change of scenery and a new team, which had me wondering if the Rangers would be able to figure out a way to pay Rick Nash, Marian Gaborik and possibly Ovechkin if they had anything left to trade for him. Now with the regular season he just had and the success he experienced under Oates that dream of mine, sadly, will never come to fruition. But maybe it’s for the better since I’m a Crosby guy anyway.

When things were going poorly in Washington, did you ever think that Ovechkin might not possibly find his old scoring ability again and d did you ever think that maybe a change of scenery was needed for him?

Klein: Well, I hate to tell you, but your dream of a Nash-Gaborik-Ovechkin tandem would have been foiled by Brad Richards’ nauseating contract. As for Ovechkin needing a change of scenery, I don’t buy it. Any of that talk was more than likely born of a bored, starved, media market or sensationalist hockey pundits.

Did I ever worry that Ovechkin wouldn’t return to form? Sure, but I’ve been preaching for some time that Ovechkin’s decline in production was a result of the changeover and resultant inconsistency in on-ice philosophy from the end of the Boudreau era to the start of the Oates era. I thought that last year, despite the sour aroma that came with discussions of his play, Ovechkin demonstrated tremendous capability in scoring 38 goals while playing most of the season under the not exactly offensively-minded Dale Hunter.

Besides, the guy has the “C” on his jersey and has only worn it for a few years now. If an organization slaps that letter on a jersey then ships the player away, it probably speaks more to the organization than it does to the individual.

Keefe: So you’re saying the Flyers aren’t exactly run by the most intelligent people for trading their captain, Mike Richards, and then watching him win the Cup that same season with the Kings? Hey, if you’re anti-Philadelphia, you’re talking to the right person.

This Rangers-Capitals series is being regarded as the best first-round series in the playoffs and I think rightfully so. You saw what the Penguins did to the Islanders and what the Bruins did to the Maple Leafs on Wednesday night, and outside of Canada, the Canadiens-Senators series just isn’t that intriguing.

My confidence prior to the start of this email exchange has cooled off with thoughts of Ovechkin becoming Ovechkin again, the feared Washington power play and the idea that Oates, a rookie head coach, could outcoach Tortorella in the series.

The Capitals have the scoring depth and secondary scoring depth with three point-per-game guys leading the way, but to me, the Rangers are the all-around deeper team (not necessarily when it comes to putting the puck in the net) and with Henrik Lundqvist as the backbone I believe they are the better team. However, I live in New York, so of course I’m going to believe this.

The Rangers enter the series after a 10-3-1 April and the Capitals come in even better after an 11-1-1 April. Outside of Pittsburgh, who no one might stop, we have the league’s two hottest teams meeting in the postseason for the fourth time in five years. I’d like to think this Rangers team is better than the team that won the series in seven games a year ago and much better than the teams that lost in five games and blew a 3-1 series lead three and four years ago. But the Rangers are a lot like the New York Football Giants in that the second you start to feel confident about them they let you down in the most devastating way possible.

I’m going with the Rangers in five games, which I’m sure will get a sarcastic laugh out of you, and really given the information I have, might be a ridiculous pick. But eff it! Rangers in five.

Klein: Picking the Rangers in five is certainly … optimistic. I don’t doubt that the Rangers have a very solid lineup from top to bottom, especially through the forward ranks (but if you’re not going to measure depth by production, I’m not certain what the best way is), but I think the injury to Marc Staal leaves them exploitable outside the top pairing of Dan Girardi and Ryan McDonough.

I personally have the Caps in six, but in order for that to come true they’re going to need to be the more disciplined team on the ice. This season was the first time in 16 years that the Capitals drew more penalties than they took and that’s only because Boston went to the box three times in the third period of the final game of the schedule. I should also point out that as great as Henrik Lundqvist is, as has been for a long time, Braden Holtby’s early measurables in career save percentage and goals against average are eerily similar.

If both goalies show up in the same way they did last year, I wouldn’t be surprised to be chewing my nails down to nubs during another Game 7.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 25, 2013

The Same Old Rangers

It was another game and another loss for the Rangers, so that means another John Tortorella postgame press conference analysis.

When I started the tradition and made the promise to analyze every John Tortorella postgame press conference following a loss, I didn’t think the Rangers would lose every game, but that’s basically what’s happened. Since the first of these after losing to the Devils, the Rangers have lost to the Canadiens and lost to the Senators and lost to the Canadiens again. (They also lost to the Islanders, but that was on Valentine’s Day and I have already given my excuse for missing that game and the postgame press conference.) Starting with that loss to the Devils, the Rangers are 4-3-2, which isn’t even that bad since I was starting to think that maybe the start of these was the problem with the team. And then I remembered that when Rick Nash doesn’t play and Marian Gaborik gets benched, it’s hard for a team without secondary scoring to score and when you don’t score it’s hard to win.

The Rangers aren’t scoring or winning right now and John Tortorella is getting testier with each loss. With three straight losses in five days, Tortorella started his postgame press conference in Montreal by asking the media a question rather than the traditional way a press conference is held.

“How high did Pacioretty jump on his hit? Anybody give me an answer? I’m asking you guys. Over/under? No one can give me an answer? Figures, Zip, you’re wrong. No, I’m just asking.”

Tortorella has a point here that Max Pacioretty did leave his feet on the hit on Ryan McDonagh. The refs thought he left his feet on the hit and gave him two minutes for boarding, which was the correct call. Neither the MSG broadcast nor the Canadian broadcast of the game really took exception to the hit (OK, obviously the Canadian broadcast wasn’t going to) and the NHL Department of Player Safety determined that the hit wasn’t worthy of a suspension. So maybe it wasn’t that bad?

The Rangers got their two-minute power play for the hit, which was viewed by both broadcasts as payback for McDonagh hitting Pacioretty earlier in the game, but the Rangers failed to score a power-play goal (surprise, surprise) and wasted the opportunity and also lost McDonagh for the rest of the game.

On what happened in the second period when the game got away.

“We don’t generate enough consistently and they score a goal. Again we’re just not consistently having the puck … offensively. They score a power-play goal, ours doesn’t work. I think our game just fell off. I thought we had a really good first period, but it fell off from there.”

Tortorella almost made the right point here except he said “enough consistently.” What he should have said was, “We don’t generate anything.” “Consistently” would indicate that the Rangers score goals at times and at other times they don’t score any goals. But in reality, they don’t ever score goals.

Marian Gaborik has the most goals on the team. Marian Gaborik was benched for the entire third period on Saturday with the Rangers needing to score goals because of a penalty he took in the second period. Brian Boyle doesn’t score goals. Brian Boyle took a penalty that cost the Rangers a win and a second point in Ottawa on Thursday late in the third period. Nothing happened to Brian Boyle. You should always bench your leading goal scorer when trailing in a game in a shortened season. It’s just common sense.

Last week the Rangers played four games. They scored four goals in those four games and came away with just three of a possible eight points. And in the “really good” first period, the Rangers had six shots and no goals. (The Canadiens only had three shots in that period, but they would at least go on to score three goals in the second and third period.) The Rangers finished with 17 shots.

To say the power play doesn’t work is an understatement. The Rangers went 0-for-2 in the game and are 8-for-71 on the year. That’s 11.3 percent. That’s good enough for the 29th-best power play in the league. (Thankfully they aren’t 30th like the Sabres at 11.3 percent. Losers!) The personnel on the power play has to change. It has to. Brad Richards might have a Conn Smythe and a worthy reputation as a “playmaker,” but he has done nothing on the first unit this season. Whether it’s his constant overthinking, making one too many passes or shooting pucks into shin pads, Richards has been detrimental to the power play when he’s supposed to be the leader of it. I think making wholesale changes to a power play that is second worst in the entire league and sitting some of the expensive cap hits for less experienced players is necessary at this point. If the younger and supposedly less offensive guys don’t get the job done, what will have changed? The worst that can happen is the Rangers will regain their spot at the bottom from the Sabres, which they are one more unsuccessful power play from taking back anyway. The best that could happen is that they actually score with a man advantage.

On so many players getting injured.

“Yeah, it’s part of the game though. You have injuries. You gotta keep on playing. I mean what can you do, Sam? Some kids got a chance to play tonight, but again we’re not playing enough minutes, so we gotta figure it out and just try to find ourselves, keep our wits about ourselves and keep on playing here.”

Wait a minute. Just wait a minute. Who was that guy standing in front of the Rangers/Chase backdrop in a suit with a goatee talking about not having the full lineup and complaining about injuries after blowing a late lead in Ottawa on Thursday night? Whoever that guy was, he looks strikingly similar to the guy who stood in front of the Rangers/Chase backdrop after the Montreal loss on Saturday night and gave us that quote about injuries not being an excuse. Very, very strange.

If the team isn’t playing “enough minutes,” who’s fault is that? No, John Tortorella doesn’t play in the games, but it’s his job to decide who does and when and it’s his job to get the most out of his players. If his players aren’t “playing” for the entire 60 minutes of the game that falls directly under his job description as head coach.

On Michael Del Zotto not being able to play in the game.

“Well, it hurts. He’s a very good player for us. It hurts. He takes some big minutes.”

Michael Del Zotto missing time does hurt because Del Zotto is basically a somewhat fifth starting pitcher. He’s going to eat minutes and have his good games with his bad games and you just hope he doesn’t screw up too badly and cost your team a game, which he tends to do. The problem is that while Del Zotto hasn’t had a good season, the options below him on the depth chart aren’t as good, which is very scary. So when you’re worried about Del Zotto not being able to play despite him thinking he is Bobby Orr and Ray Bourque and thinking the power play runs through him, it’s never a good thing. Hurry back, Michael Del Zotto? (Yes, a question mark is the correct punctuation there.)

On severity of injuries to Girardi and McDonagh.

“No, I don’t know, and I’m not going to talk about it anyway.”

John Tortorella has the right to not talk about injuries, but choosing not to seems to be making his job harder. I’m not sure what talking about injuries will really do since if Player X has a concussion and Team Y finds out about it, I don’t think Team Y is going to purposely target Player X’s head in the 2012-13 NHL where contact to the head is finally being taken seriously. And I don’t think players are going to willingly put their own jobs and other players’ careers in jeopardy or forfeit their source of income to hit someone in the head.

Tortorella has started to get agitated and angry when asked about injuries and it really upsets him that media members want to find out why players are missing time and games so they can report it. As a fan, it would be nice to know why Rick Nash hasn’t played in the last three games since the team has scored three goals combined in the games he has missed. It would help to know if there’s a chance he might play on Tuesday against Winnipeg or on Thursday against Tampa Bay or if he will play again in March or April or at all again this season. (Sure, it’s extreme to wonder if he will be out for months, but how am I supposed to know if I don’t even know why he is out in the first place?) Fans deserve to know why their team’s most important offensive player isn’t playing and when he might play again. You know fans, the people who happen to be the reason that someone like John Tortorella is able to coach professional hockey for a job and afford to be fined $30,000 like he was after the Winter Classic or $20,000 like he was after ripping the Penguins last April.

On how to get more from his team.

“We’ve gotta try to gain some confidence. We’ve gotta try to just stabilize ourselves when we lose a couple. Coming into these last three games here we were playing pretty well. We find a way to get a point in Ottawa. We can’t get into a panic mode. We just need to get more minutes consistently out of our players and I mean it’s a hard question to answer, Sam. It’s just a matter of trying to find yourself and hope some good things happen and you gain some confidence.”

Before the season, Tortorella told Mike Francesa that in a shortened season you can’t afford to get into a jam because you might not be able to get out of it. The Rangers are in a jam sitting in 10th place in the East with the season 35 percent over and injuries mounting. They haven’t looked like a playoff team since their win in Boston seven games and 13 days ago and no one is talking about what the Rangers can do this spring, they’re talking about whether or not they will be playing after Game 48 and if Brad Richards will be amnestied by the team.

The 2012-13 Rangers were a team that was looking to build off a season in which they finished first in the conference and reached the Eastern Conference Finals. Instead they look like the pre-2011-12, post-lockout Rangers, who played by the strategy of “score the first goal and hope Henrik Lundqvist makes it stand.” Those Rangers team either didn’t make the playoffs or lost in the first round and never once made it out of the second round. This team is becoming those teams.

Read More

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 22, 2013

The Canadiens Own the Recent Rangers

The Rangers’ second meeting this week with the first-place Canadiens called for an email exchange with Andrew Berkshire of Eyes on the Prize.

The Rangers lost another game in which they led on Thursday night in Ottawa. Now their two-game road trip north of the border stops in Montreal on Saturday night for their second meeting with the first-place Canadiens this week.

Andrew Berkshire of Eyes on the Prize joined me for an email exchange to talk about why no one is giving the Canadiens the credit they deserve, why they are a bad matchup for the Rangers and what it’s like to have Brandon Prust on the Habs.

Keefe: John Tortorella called the Canadiens a “bad team” (which I ripped him for) after their win over the Rangers on Tuesday night. Henrik Lundqvist called the Canadiens “boring” despite their 3-1 win and now first-place spot in the Eastern Conference. No one seems to want to give the Habs credit for their strong start and five-game winning streak before their shootout loss on Thursday, but we are now one-third of the way through this shortened NHL season and while 17 games might not be a strong enough sample size in other years, it certainly is this year.

Why isn’t anyone giving credit to the Canadiens for their 11-4-2 start? They just won five games in seven days and beat the Hurricanes in Montreal and the Rangers in New York in less than 24 hours. They have outscored their opponents 18-9 over the last six games and outside of their loss to the Senators on Jan. 30 and their loss to the Maple Leads on Feb. 9, they have either won every other game or lost by one goal. The Canadiens might not have the type of stars other teams around the league do or an exciting and flashy style of play and maybe they are “boring,” but the Devils proved that “boring” can lead to championships in the NHL.

I’m buying into the Canadiens, but why isn’t everyone else?

Berkshire: As far as Torts goes, he’s always bitter after a loss it seems. His grumpy demeanor is funny from the outside at times, but it also wears thin. The Canadiens team he saw was playing its third game in four nights, all against teams that are fighting to get into the playoff picture. I don’t think the Canadiens were particularly great that night, but calling them a bad team is just Torts blowing hot air.

As for Henrik, I believe he also called them a smart team, which gives it a little context. The Canadiens played a boring brand of hockey against the Rangers on Tuesday, there is no denying that, but they were dog-tired and it ended up working.

I think the main reason no one wants to believe that the Canadiens are a good team is that, especially among the mainstream press, narratives are hard to shake. Under Jacques Martin the Canadiens were labeled a bad team, even though they were actually a good team. When they fell apart last year, many people felt like they’d been given justification for their former misgivings. And these are Habs fans! There are a lot of people who would rather be right than see their team win, and I think that was largely the case there.

As far as national media goes, the Canadiens were so bad last year for two thirds of the year that it was hard to believe they could possibly recover so quickly. At Eyes on the Prize, we go over a lot of data every day and we figured that a quick turnaround was more than possible, in fact it was highly likely. You can only be so bad when you have Carey Price, P.K. Subban and Andrei Markov heading up your back end. But it’s hard for a lot of people to move away from their opinions. The Habs were bad last year, so surely they would be bad again.

All this said, the Canadiens have still been one of the luckiest teams in the league, with high shooting percentages for several players that aren’t really sustainable. They’re going to lose more often in the next few weeks than they have so far this year, but they’re a playoff team in my opinion, maybe a Top 4 team in the East.

Keefe: I’m a Yankee fan, so I understand people wanting to be right and have their opinions be validated rather than having their team win.

It seems like there’s something different about the Rangers when they play the Canadiens. Actually I know there is. No matter how well the Rangers have played leading into the game or for how long they have been playing well, they always seem to either give an awful effort against or look like a completely different team when they face the Habs.

The Canadiens have won 11 of the last 17 meetings with the Rangers dating back to the beginning of the 2008-09 season. (I started counting with the 2008-09 season because the 2007-08 season featured the Rangers’ epic embarrassment on Feb. 19, 2008 when they blew a 5-0 lead in Montreal with 34:57 left in the game. I’m sure you remember that game well.) After Saturday’s game, the Rangers and Canadiens will only meet one other time this season (unless they meet in the playoffs) on March 30.

Why do you think the Rangers seem to never have their best game or anything that closely resembles their normal game when they play the Canadiens even though the names on the rosters change?

Berkshire: It’s an interesting question. I believe heading into that 5-0 comeback game the Rangers had dominated the Habs for a couple straight years, but I could be wrong.

I think part of it could be psychological. That game between the Rangers and Habs in 2008 was a turning point in that season for Montreal, and they blitzed through the rest of the season to finish first in the conference. One guy who always seems to be ordinary against the Habs is Lundqvist and we all know that he’s anything but ordinary. It’s possible that he’s still annoyed with that game a few years later. Something I’ve noticed with Lundqvist is that if you put a few past him, he stops fighting to make saves, and gets visibly frustrated.

Other than perhaps some latent mental frustration lasting from that game, I don’t really think there’s a logical explanation. The Rangers are a strong team, especially defensively that they shouldn’t be too far below .500 against the Habs.

It reminds me a little of the Habs and Leafs. The Leafs have been a terrible team by pretty much any measure for the last five or so years, while the Canadiens have been OK to strong over that time, yet they split the games down the middle. Something about the way the two teams match up that isn’t readily apparent causes results that shouldn’t happen.

Keefe: Brian Gionta has been one of my favorite players in the league since he debuted during the 2001-02 season even though his career has been spent with New Jersey and Montreal. I had the chance to watch him in college at Boston College and admired his scoring ability and his style of play despite being 5-foot-7, which he’s listed at, but appears way, way smaller.

Scott Gomez was also a personal favorite of mine after his Calder Trophy campaign in 1999-2000 despite playing for New Jersey and I was ecstatic when the Rangers signed him before the 2007-08 season. I was even more ecstatic when they were able to trade him to the Canadiens before the 2009-10 season.

The two of them formed the EGG line in New Jersey with Patrik Elias before teaming up in Montreal, but now their careers have gone separate ways with Gionta being the captain of the Canadiens and Gomez being told to go home for the year before ending up with the Sharks.

How much do you enjoy getting to watch Gionta play for your Canadiens and how did you feel about Gomez’s time and unusual departure?

Berkshire: I’m one of the few Canadiens fans who doesn’t harbor any ill will against Scott Gomez. It’s not his fault that Glen Sather signed him to an insane contract and it’s not his fault that Bob Gainey gave up Ryan McDonagh and Chris Higgins for him (two players that are younger and better than he is).

Gomez had the misfortune of being in Montreal when his career plateaued and he began to decline into old age and he was eviscerated for it. That said, he did have one very good year in 2009-10, and probably could have had a second one in 2010-11 if the Pacioretty-Gomez-Gionta line was a thing from the start of the season to the end.

I enjoyed watching Gomez’s transition game and neutral-zone play, which is still a strong skill set of his, but the rest got to be pretty mind-numbing by last year. I was glad to see him go, although it was still surprising. I think in the end, the buyout is good for both the Canadiens and Scott Gomez, who no longer has to worry about being labeled overpaid.

Gionta on the other hand, has been excellent for the Habs. He’s also at the age where his scoring has taken a slight dip every year, from a near 40-goal pace in his first year, to near 30, to an injury plagued year and now he’s likely a 25-goals-per-82-games kind of player.

He’s still solid defensively and plays a strong possession game against top competition though, and he rarely takes a shift off. Watching Gionta go in on the forecheck against Zdeno Chara and winning the puck battle tells you all you need to know about the Habs captain.

Keefe: Brandon Prust became an important part of the Rangers after being traded to New York in the Olli Jokinen deal three years ago. His grinder style of play and his willingness to fight anyone at anytime made him a blue-collar player and fan favorite in the city. My friend Dave went so far as to buy a Prust jersey last season, which I strongly advised him not to do.

So far this season Prust has already has two goals and five points after having just five goals and 17 points in all 82 games last year. He has a plus-7 rating, leads the league in penalty minutes with 76 (on pace to break his career high even in a shortened season) and is second in the league with six fighting majors. At four years and $10 million it seemed like the Habs overpaid for Prust in the summer, but he is giving them everything he gave the Rangers in two-plus seasons and more. Right now the Rangers could use Prust, but instead he’s helping your team try to achieve the 1-seed this season.

Berkshire: I really like Brandon Prust. I think his contract is a little too much money for a little bit too long, but that’s what happens with unrestricted free agents who have a unique skill set.

He’s already a fan favorite here, which has led to fans and media completely overblowing his value to the point where our local sports radio station asserted that he’s been the second most important player on the team this year. That’s pretty crazy and I wrote about what his real value is to the team on Wednesday.

I think he’s an above average fourth liner who can play on the third line if necessary, something the Canadiens have four of now along with Travis Moen, Colby Armstrong and Ryan White. He’s also been lights-out on the penalty kill, which is a welcome surprise since he was only middling by the numbers on the Rangers.

Is he going to be worth his contract by the last year of it? I don’t know, but for now I really like what he brings to the team.

Keefe: When the two teams met on Tuesday night, it was ugly. It was the second-worst game of the year for the Rangers after their 3-0 home loss to the Penguins on Jan. 31.

On Thursday night the Rangers blew a third-period lead to the Senators, and lost in a shootout, to drop their second straight game in which they led and it was their third loss in a row in which they scored the first goal. The Canadiens also lost on Thursday, but it was the first in six games as they blew a two-goal lead to the Islanders and lost in a shootout.

Saturday night will be the second-to-last meeting of the season between the Rangers and Canadiens (the last one is March 30) and hopefully we see a better all-around game than we saw on Tuesday. But in the bigger picture, what do you see for the Rangers and Canadiens over the remaining two-thirds of the season?

Berkshire: I think what we’ll see on Saturday is a much more entertaining game than what we saw on Tuesday. The Canadiens were extremely disappointed with how the game ended against the Islanders with Max Pacioretty being particularly fired up. The Canadiens are also a much stronger home team than they are on the road and won’t be coming off of three games in four nights.

Similarly, I think the Rangers are going to be a lot better as well. It’s possible that Rick Nash will be back in the lineup and that’s a big boost on its own, but I also think they have something to prove after the last game. I think we’ll see a high tempo game.

As for how the season will go, I think the Habs will be taking a step down sooner or later, because they’re not as good as their record. They should challenge the Bruins for the division title, but I’m not sure that they’re there yet. They’re a playoff team though, and a pretty good one.

The Rangers don’t seem to be the team they were last year. They’re still fantastic defensively, but they lost quite a bit of depth when the traded for Rick Nash, and they seem to miss Brandon Prust on the fourth line. They’re still a playoff team in my mind. I don’t think they’re as good as the Penguins over an 82-game season, but over this 48-game one, they could begin a hot streak that propels them up the standings to a division title.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 20, 2013

John Tortorella Thinks the First-Place Canadiens Are a Bad Team

John Tortorella didn’t have much to say after the Rangers’ 3-1 loss to the Canadiens, but he said enough.

There isn’t much to say about a 3-1 home loss to the best team in the Eastern Conference and John Tortorella proved that after Tuesday night’s embarrassment.

Tortorella provided no insight into what the eff happened to the Rangers between Sunday night and Tuesday night, with or without Rick Nash (who he also didn’t provide any information on) because why would Tortorella need to tell anyone why his team can’t seem to consistently hold or increase a lead?

It was another night where the power play put up a zero and the Rangers’ power play now has three goals in 27 opportunities in February and the man advantage is dead last in the NHL at 10.9 percent for the season. It was another night where the Rangers outshot their opponent and didn’t win and another night where they failed to convert high-quality scoring chances. And it was another night where Brian Boyle failed to score a point, extending his scoreless streak to seven straight as the Tortorella favorite now has one assist in 12 games this season. But he did lead the team with six hits! Hits!

But for everything I say about Boyle (all of which is true), it was a full team loss against the Canadiens. Henrik Lundqvist said, “They play it extremely boring” and I’m not sure if he was praising or trying to mock the Habs, but maybe it’s time the Rangers played “it” boring. Because if playing it boring gets you two points every game and first place in the conference, well that’s way more fun than losing.

After the Rangers lost to the Devils two weeks ago, I said I would start a tradition on Keefe To The City and analyze John Tortorella’s postgame press conference after every Rangers loss. I missed the 4-3 shootout loss to the Islanders on Valentine’s Day because it was Valentine’s Day and if I was watching hockey instead of celebrating it then I would certainly be watching hockey on Valentine’s Day next year. So here’s John Tortorella after Tuesday’s 3-1 loss to the Canadiens.

On the game as a whole.

“I thought it was probably one of the worst hockey games I’ve been involved in. Both teams. But they were better than we were.”

There’s no doubt it might have been one of the worst games Tortorella has ever been involved in, but that would mean that he doesn’t remember the Rangers’ 3-0 loss to the Penguins at the Garden on Jan. 31.

I’m not really sure how Tortorella can stand there after losing a home game to the top team in the Eastern Conference and say that both teams played poorly. Not only did the Canadiens beat the Rangers on the road, but the Canadiens played the Hurricanes at 7:30 p.m. on Monday night in Montreal and won 3-0. 23 hours and 30 minutes after the Canadiens-Hurricanes game started, the Canadiens and Rangers began play at Madison Square Garden. In less than 24 hours the Canadiens beat the current 3 seed in the Eastern Conference (thanks to Gary Bettman’s division winner system) and then flew to New York City and depending on what time they arrived at their hotel in New York (I’m guessing early Tuesday morning) they either beat the Rangers the following night or that same night.

The Canadiens deserve a pass for poor and sloppy play and 15 shots on goal. The Rangers, however, last played on Sunday at home against the Capitals. They slept at their own homes in their own beds on Sunday and Monday night and the only travel they had to endure was to the team’s practice facility and to Madison Square Garden. Maybe just maybe Tortorella shouldn’t be grouping the Rangers’ effort with the Canadiens’ effort?

On the icing that was waved off and led to the Canadiens’ first goal.

“They told me that they were yelling to Michael, “No icing” because they said he was shielding the player when he was going back for the puck. They said they didn’t think he was skating completely going to the puck. Doesn’t matter. That doesn’t cost us the game. No excuse there. Two bad teams playing and we were worse than they were.”

Even though Tortorella believes this play didn’t cost the Rangers the game, and yes they deserved to lose anyway, the play did have an impact on the outcome of the game since every play does whether or not he will admit it. After praising his team’s effort in a loss to the Devils just two weeks ago, Tortorella did say, “No excuse there,” so I have to give him credit for not talking about how well the team played despite what the scoreboard said. But let’s look at the last sentence of his quote, which sounds very similar to how he opened his postgame press conference.

The Canadiens are the hottest team in the Eastern Conference and have won five straight games, outscoring opponents 15-5. Three of those wins have come on the road and all five of them came in a one-week period. They are in first place.

The Rangers have lost two of their last three games, all at home, and their only win in the three games came against the last-place Capitals. Last Tuesday they blew a three-goal lead with 11:16 left to play in Boston, but won in a shootout. Last Thursday they blew a two-goal lead after the first to the Islanders and lost in a shootout. In seven of their 15 games they have been held to two goals or less and have scored just three goals in the last seven periods. They are in ninth place.

How is the team in first place just as “bad” as the team in ninth place that they just beat? How is the team in first place “bad” at all?

Tortorella kept it short with the media after the loss and finished with this gem before walking away.

“That pretty much sums it up, huh?”

A poor effort in a home loss following a day of rest with nothing to show for on the power play? Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Read More