Henrik Zetterberg – Keefe To The City

Jan 16, 2014

Rangers-Red Wings Isn’t So Rare Anymore

The Red Wings are at Madison Square Garden for the first time in almost two years and that calls for an email exchange with “J.J. from Kansas” of Winging It In Motown.

It feels like Rangers-Red Wings never happens. That’s partially because it rarely has until now. The two teams met this season on Oct. 26, but thanks to the lockout last year, they didn’t meet at all in 2012-13 and just once a season prior to that. So when the two Original Six teams meet on Thursday night at Madison Square Garden, it will feel more important than a normal regular-season game and that’s because it kind of is. Thankfully with realignment, we will get more than just one Rangers-Red Wings game a year now.

With the Rangers and Red Wings playing for the second of three times this season, I did an email exchange with “J.J. from Kansas” of Winging It In Motown to talk about the Red Wings playing in the Eastern Conference, how they were portrayed in 24/7 leading up to the Winter Classic and what’s been going on with them over the last six weeks.

Keefe: After a long, long time as an Eastern Time Zone team playing in the Western Conference, the Red Wings are where they should be when it comes to alignment thanks to the realignment. The Red Wings might be out of place in the “Atlantic” division, but at least they are in the right place when it comes to traveling. (The Red Wings shouldn’t feel too awkward about playing in the “Atlantic” with Columbus and Carolina being considered “Metropolitan.”)

What were you feelings about the Red Wings’ move back to normality and playing in their own time zone when the plans were announced? And what do you think of the realignment now 46 games into the change?

J.J.: Being honest about the switch to the East, since I’m in the Central Time Zone, it wasn’t really a big deal to me, but I always liked the concept. I especially liked that the schedule-making would adjust to leave the Wings with only two trips out West where we’d have games starting at 10 p.m. EST or later. Ultimately I was happy that the travel schedule wouldn’t be as brutal for Detroit, but this never felt to me as the eventual correction of old wrongs like it has to much of the older generation of Wings fans who didn’t grow up with the Central Division.

This season has been a weird, bittersweet experience for me. I haven’t experienced the weird playoff quirks yet, but I do like the new realignment plan as far as it’s worked on the NHL regular season. The adjustment has come in how I watch games on off days for the Wings. I’ve always preferred to watch division rivals’ games and root for whichever outcome would most benefit the Wings. In doing that, I didn’t watch a ton of Eastern Conference hockey in the last few years and as a result, it’s almost been a culture shock for me readjusting to a bunch of uniforms, players, and styles I to which I haven’t grown accustomed (not to mention half a league’s worth of local announcers). In the West, I can still pick out which line is on the ice for teams based solely on how the forwards skate. I haven’t gotten used to that yet in the East save for a few of the very familiar or standout players (the Penguins, Rick Nash and Phil Kessel).

Keefe: There isn’t a bigger 24/7 fan than me and I hope that my dream of it being stretched into covering a team for a full season will one day be realized. (Kind of like what ESPN did with The Season and the Red Wings in 2002-03 and the Avalanche in 2003-04, only better.) Who wouldn’t want a full season of the show?

Two years ago when the Rangers and Flyers were the stars of 24/7 for their Winter Classic in Philadelphia, it made the show that much better having “my” team be covered in depth for a month. This year you had “your” team as one of the co-stars of the four-episode series. What did you think about how the Red Wings were portrayed?

J.J.: I’d LOVE to see a full season of 24/7 … centered around somebody else. I don’t know if I’m just looking for excuses or my dumb caveman brain is sliding a bit of causation into the correlation between the Red Wings being on 24/7 and the Red Wings playing like crap in the weeks where the HBO cameras were following them around, but it seemed that while the cameras were rolling, the Red Wings were just not comfortable.

Overall, I think HBO did the best they could with the Wings, but I’m caught between wanting to have seen much more and wanting to respect that they’re professional hockey players and stay away from their private lives. I would have loved to have seen more of Pavel Datsyuk, but he’s a private guy and if he doesn’t want to deal with the HBO cameras that much, then so be it.

Keefe: This season of the show gave me a better understanding of the Red Wings and there were three things I really took away from it (aside from disliking Dion Phaneuf more). The first was how strong of a presence Mike Babcock has with the team and the organization. I have long thought that Babcock is the best head coach in the league (and that’s likely why he is also the Team Canada coach), but my opinion was only reinforced with the show and the way he handles managing his team on and off the ice.

The second was how badly the Red Wings have been crushed by the injury bug over the first half of season. Sure, the Rangers lost their best two players in Rick Nash for 17 games in October and November and Henrik Lundqvist for a week in October, and you could throw Ryan Callahan in there too, who has also missed 17 games. But those injuries are nothing compared to what the Red Wings have endured. Seeing Babcock write and re-write and erase the names on his lines and depth chart whiteboard was remarkable and almost made me feel like he was managing the 2013 Yankees and their injury bug. I guess I know why the Red Wings are a point out of the playoff picture.

And the last thing would be the way Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg are perceived by the younger players on the team, almost as if the younger players haven’t grasped the idea that they are in the NHL and playing with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. The way the younger players glowingly talk about the duo and look up to them shows how the team has changed and turned over since the two entered the league 12 and 13 years ago.

J.J.: As the Wings have seemingly come farther away from Stanley Cup contention in the last few years, the fan base has grown a bit restless with Babcock. He’s never given the local writers much of a glimpse behind the scenes and has always done a great job dodging attempts to get the kind of glimpses that reporters could run with on a story. We’ve always had a bit of a sense as to when he was either taking blame or sending a message to the media about his players, but without the behind the scenes access from 24/7, all we really had was a picture of a cagey coach who favors veterans to youngsters without any real in-depth explanation. Seeing how he interacted with the team, especially the youngsters, has been a big positive for me this season.

As far as the injuries, I’m among the fans asking for an audit of the Red Wings’ procedures as far as training and conditioning goes. I know that the common joke is that the Red Wings are old, but the rate of injuries and the type that we’ve seen most common (groin) is just disconcerting.

I think personally that part of the younger players idolizing the core veterans was partially scripted to make up for the HBO cameras’ lack of access to Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg. Hank (our Hank), was featured in that segment where he’s skating on his pond, but that’s pretty much all you got from him. It is very clear that what earned Datsyuk and Zetterberg their way in the NHL was each of their work ethics (even the old guard guys like Steve Yzerman commented on it before they left) so if the youngsters look up to them that much, it’s just the personnel changing around them and not the attitude.

Keefe: It doesn’t seem like a team with Datsyuk and Zetterberg and Daniel Alfredsson (even a 40-year-old Alfredsson should struggle) and strong depth and secondary scoring options should struggle the way the Red Wings have for the first half of the season. Can the 20-16-10 start to the season and being on the playoff bubble be chalked up as a result of the incredible rash of injuries or is it something more than that?

J.J.: I hate to keep using injuries as an excuse, but the sheer amount of change that happens to the Wings as a result of them can’t be ignored. The Wings’ system is based on puck movement more than grinding and that’s the kind of players they have. when players switch in and out of the lineup or up and down lines, the timing of everything falls off just a little bit and puck possession can suffer. When you have so many injuries that you have to change the system to a more dump-and-chase style, then you’re facing the whammy that is the Red Wings aren’t a team that was specifically built for that system, so they have some guys playing in roles that they’re not as well-suited for.

Despite that, there are three issues which are not injury related which have also combined to hurt the Wings. The first is that the young defensive corps is still learning the ropes and do not deal with aggressive forechecking as well as more-veteran players do. This slows down transition and causes them to spend more time in their own end facing shots. Second, the play of Jimmy Howard has not been as dominant as it has and that has cost them some points. Finally, for whatever reason, the Red Wings are 1-7 in the shootout this year, which has also stripped them of points.

When everything adds up, the Red Wings are not as bad a bubble team as their record indicates. I don’t think that they’re a top contender, but a healthy Wings team that gets even a bit luckier is an upper mid-tier contender at least on par with a team like Montreal or Tampa.

Keefe: The last time the Rangers and Red Wings met (Oct. 26), the Rangers were finishing up their season-opening nine-game road trip and arrived in Detroit with a 2-6-0 record and were coming off back-to-back losses to the (at the time) lowly Devils and Flyers. After giving up a devastating late second-period goal to Daniel Alfredsson with 11 seconds left in the second to give the Red Wings a 2-1 lead, Mats Zuccarello scored just 2:18 into the third to tie the game. Then in overtime, Derick Brassard scored with 13 seconds left to give the Rangers the win and their first win in Detroit since Jan. 30, 1999. Yes, 1999! Once again … that’s 1-9-9-9!

This time the Rangers and Red Wings meet with the Rangers playing their best hockey of the season, despite their 2-1 home loss to the Lightning on Tuesday night (it was the first time the Rangers failed to score more at least two goals since Dec. 10, which is actually unbelievable considering it used to happen every other game). The Rangers have won eight of their last 12, earning 17 of a possible 24 points and taking over the first wild-card spot in the standings. The Red Wings, on the other hand, have traded wins and losses for nearly a month and have won consecutive games only once since the start of the December.

What has been going on with the Red Wings over the last six weeks as they come to Madison Square Garden on Thursday night?

J.J.: The recent play of the Red Wings is a reflection of what we’ve talked about above. Whether it’s injuries, distractions, and flat-out unimpressive play, Detroit isn’t a very good hockey club right now and their recent record shows that. At some point, they’re going to start getting healthier and more consistent and will start stringing victories together more often, but there’s not an expectation that’s going to happen this week. None of the injured forwards are expected back for Thursday’s game and in fact, the Wings will be without one of the best players they’ve had the last few weeks, as Tomas Tatar went back to Slovakia this week to attend his father’s funeral after playing both Saturday and Sunday with a heavy heart caused by his dad’s passing last Friday.

Blogs • NHL

Apr 16, 2012

Brendan Shanahan Is Ruining The NHL

I was satisfied with the decision to give the responsibilities of NHL Judge to Brendan Shanahan. But what I didn’t know was that he would become Colin Campbell.

This column was originally published on WFAN.com on April 16, 2012.

“I’m Brendan Shanahan of the National Hockey League’s Department of Player Safety … and I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing.”

If you have never watched a Shanahan suspension video on NHL.com before, that’s how he opens the video by letting the viewer know who he is and what department he works for (except for the “I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing” part). But chances are if you’re watching one of his videos it’s because you’re interested in the infraction being reviewed. And if you’re interested in watching a video of an infraction it’s because you watch hockey. And if you watch hockey then you know who Brendan Shanahan is. And if you know who Brendan Shanahan is then you know why he is the Vice President of Player Safety and how he got the job.

I was ecstatic like everyone else when Shanahan took over for Colin Campbell, who was more incompetent than the Yankees’ Clay Rapada could ever be. Campbell had become a running joke around the NHL and any form of replacement would have been better than him. I was satisfied with the decision to give the responsibilities of NHL Judge to Shanahan, as he would become the head disciplinarian for the league. But what I didn’t know was that he would become Colin Campbell.

Does Brendan Shanahan think he’s doing a good job because he makes videos to explain the infractions and the punishments he determines for the infractions? Because, if anything, the videos make his decisions look even more nonsensical. At least when Campbell was recklessly throwing around suspensions (or sometimes a lack thereof), there wasn’t video evidence of him narrating plays so we could see inside his inconsistent mind.

In Game 2 of the Rangers-Senators series, Matt Carkner dressed with the mission of fighting Brian Boyle for getting physical with Erik Karlsson, and I have no problem with Carkner dressing for this purpose. But when Boyle decided he wasn’t going to fight Carkner on the first attempt, Carkner decided he was going to fight anyway and sucker-punched Boyle and then continued to punch him as he went down to the ice. In the process, Brandon Dubinsky went to the aid of his defenseless teammate and was given a game misconduct for not allowing Carkner to finish a job that could have ended Boyle’s season or maybe even his career.

Carkner was suspended one game for a pre-meditated attack (which once again I don’t have a problem with since it’s part of the game, but square up or take care of it in the correct setting), but an attack against a guy who didn’t square up with him and led to Carkner doing what he was set out to do anyway. One game! Here’s what Shanahan said in his NHL.com video review of Carkner’s infraction.

“Carkner is excessive in his approach. It is important to note that Carkner has acted similarly in the past and injured an opponent in the process. In a game at Ottawa on Dec. 31, 2009, in reaction to a bodycheck thrown at a teammate, Carkner got the jump on a New York Islander forward and punched him before he could react and defend himself, fracturing his orbital bone. We have taken into consideration that Boyle suffered no apparent injury as a result of this infraction and remained in the game.”

So, let’s recap. Because Boyle wasn’t hurt and because Carkner didn’t fracture yet another player’s orbital bone, the suspension is only one game. That seems fair. Punishments and consequences should definitely be based on the result of the player’s action and not the player’s action or intent. But here’s my question: Is there any doubt that Carkner was trying to break Boyle’s orbital bone and just failed to do so?

It’s only partially Shanahan’s fault that he makes decisions based on the result of the hit or punch or check. For years the NHL has awarded a four-minute power play for a high-sticking penalty that draws blood. Any amount of blood. It could be a scrape or a cut the size of a pencil tip, or it could be a gash that requires 18 stitches or a trip to the emergency room. It doesn’t matter. If there’s blood it’s four minutes. But you could high-stick an opponent and break their jaw or their cheek or their orbital bone or blind them and as long as any of these things don’t draw blood then it’s just a two-minute penalty. No big deal.

Now also in Game 2, Carl Hagelin finished a check high with his hands and elbow on Daniel Alfredsson, which resulted in Alfredsson suffering a concussion and leaving the game. And because Alfredsson was injured on the hit, Hagelin, who doesn’t have a history or a reputation of anything remotely close to being dirty, was suspended three games.

Now if Hagelin’s infraction had been the first infraction of the NHL season and we had no further knowledge or records of previous elbow infractions that result in head injuries then yes, you could make the case his punishment is just since it would set a precedent. (We’ll get to the word “precedent” and teach Shanahan the meaning of the word later on.) But when, in the same game, there is a more dangerous play from a more dangerous player after months and months of inconsistent suspensions from Shanahan, then yes, there’s a serious problem with claiming that Hagelin’s suspension is just.

Let’s look at three different incidents that happened this week with the two involving the Rangers happening on the same day and the one involving the Predators and Red Wings happening three days before.

Carl Hagelin, with no suspension history or reputation of dirty play, receives a three-game suspension for finishing a check and hitting star Daniel Alfredsson high that results in a concussion.

Matt Carkner, with a history of the same exact act, receives a one-game suspension for jumping non-star Brian Boyle, sucker-punching him and continuing to beat him while on the ice, but the incident doesn’t result in injury.

Shea Weber punches star Henrik Zetterberg’s in the back of the head and then uses the same hand that punched to drive Zetterberg’s head into the glass and dasher and receives a $2,500 fine, as the incident doesn’t result in an injury.

(I make sure to note who is considered a “star” and who isn’t since this also clearly impacts Shanahan’s decisions.)

Does anyone see a pattern here? Do any of these punishments have anything in common with each other? Does any of this make sense to anyone other than Brendan Shanahan?

On Monday morning, Shanahan went on Boomer and Carton to justify his suspension of Hagelin (which he failed to logically do). And if you plan on listening to the interview, which I strongly recommend if you think Shanahan is good at his job or makes sound decisions, then I also recommend investing in some of Mugatu’s “crazy pills” from Zoolander because Shanahan’s arguments and logic are so confusing that they will make you question if what he’s saying is actually real life. Here are some epic highlights that came from Shanahan’s mouth in the interview.

On why Carl Hagelin is suspended for three games and Matt Carkner is suspended for one game: “The biggest difference between the two plays is there is head injury and concussion on one and no injury on the other. Now that doesn’t mean that one guy gets off and the other guy doesn’t.”

(I almost feel like this quote should be written above the doors to the NHL offices entrance the way that “I would like to thank the Good Lord for making me a Yankee” used to be written across the front of Yankee Stadium.)

Actually that’s exactly what it means because you said that’s what it means just moments later. Shanahan had a chance to set a precedent at the beginning of the year, but he chose not to. I hate to reference arguably the worst movie ever made in 50 First Dates, but is there any denying that Shanahan is Drew Barrymore here? Actually he’s worse. Barrymore wakes up everyday forgetting who she is and the decisions she has made, but Shanahan can’t even make it through the day without erasing suspension decisions he has made since he makes multiple suspension decisions in the same day and they have no correlation to each other. But Shanahan didn’t set a precedent and now suspensions are made with what I like to think is a cootie catcher complete with the NHL shield on it. In most sports you know what a suspension will be for a certain infraction, but there’s no one in the hockey world that can tell you with any certainty what a suspension will be for a specific incident after it happens, and this includes Shanahan. (If you don’t believe me, listen to the interview when he sort of gets stuck answering about what the suspension would have been if Alfredsson didn’t get hurt or if it will be reduced if he comes back in the series.)

Shanahan has set the tone for the league by saying, “You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t result in an injury.” So if the Penguins trail big in Game 4 and a sweep is inevitable, it would be wise for Peter Laviolette to remove his players from the ice because if the Penguins have brushed up on their Marty McSorley, Claude Lemieux, Darcy Tucker and Tie Domi YouTube watching, they are free to duplicate any of the league’s all-time cheap shots … as long as they don’t injure or concuss anyone.

On Carkner not landing many punches to Boyle’s face: “He hits him with five more punches in the arm, shoulder and back and not in the head.”

Ah, and here’s Shanahan sticking up for Carkner. “Come on! Most of the punches didn’t even hit Boyle in the face! It wasn’t that bad!” Do you know how bad Carkner’s assault was? It was bad enough that when I saw the first replays of it during the game I figured Carkner would be gone for the rest of the series, if not the rest of the playoffs (not that he was going to play in anymore games for the Senators anyway). But one game? ONE GAME?!?!?! Does anyone think Carkner was trying to hit Boyle in the arm, shoulder and back? Or was it because Boyle was on the ice after taking a punch to the jaw before the follow-up punches?

On Shea Weber driving Henrik Zetterberg’s face into the glass: “I think that he pushed his face into the glass. I was very close to a one-game suspension on that.”

You “think” he pushed his face into the glass. You “think?!?!?!?!” You don’t “know?” You aren’t “sure?” Oh, but you were “close” to a one-game suspension for Weber trying to break Zetterberg’s face and neck. Well that makes everything better. But because Zetterberg wasn’t injured, Weber can pay $2,500 and try his luck breaking Zetterberg’s face and neck in Game 4.

What if Shanahan held his current job when Chris Simon tried to behead Ryan Hollweg as if he were Ned Stark in Game of Thrones? Because Hollweg was able to get back up on his own skate would Simon have avoided suspension and just been given a $2,500 citation for using his stick as a medieval sword?

There’s no time for Shanahan to learn his new job on the fly, which he is clearly tying to while he makes things up in his videos and interviews as he goes. The problem is his decisions and suspensions have long-lasting effects that go deeper than just changing the course of a game or a series. Shanahan’s job is more important than deciding who should lose pay for a couple of games or should or shouldn’t be allowed to dress. He has the ability to change the course of a playoff series or a championship or the history of the game, as well as influence the jobs and livelihoods of others, and that’s why it’s OK to call into question his job and his livelihood.

Let’s say Shanahan suspends Player X for a few games in a postseason series because he was involved in an infraction that resulted in an injury. Now Player X’s team loses their first-round playoff series because of Player X’s unwarranted suspension. Now Player X’s owner is upset that his team didn’t make it out of the first round after lofty expectations for several seasons and he fires Player X’s coach and general manager and trades away some of Player X’s teammates and uproots their lives and families’ lives because of another first-round postseason exit. Is this an extreme scenario for Shanahan’s decision making? Sure. Is it out of the realm of possibility? No.

At the end of Shanahan’s interview with Boomer and Carton, Boomer tells him he’s going to have a busy day today after the Penguins-Flyers gongshow from Game 3, and Shanahan responds about handing out more suspensions by saying, “I’m not done yet.” It’s too bad because I wish he was done, and I’m not talking about handing out suspensions.

Tag: Henrik Zetterberg

Rangers-Red Wings Isn’t So Rare Anymore

Brendan Shanahan Is Ruining The NHL