fbpx

Tag: Marty McSorley

BlogsNHL

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.

Read More

BlogsRangers

Rangers Reeling Through Ides of March

The Rangers have the most points in the East, but the Penguins are the best team in the East and the best team in the league, and it’s not really up for debate either.

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

The Rangers have to get out of the first round of the playoffs. Actually they have to get out of the second round too. They have to. John Tortorella can make all the excuses months before the playoffs that he wants by saying this team isn’t ready to win yet, but I think they are. I think the “best” team in either conference has a chance to win it all. Really, I think any playoff team in either conference has a chance to win it all.

The Rangers are the “best” team in the Eastern Conference right now. They have the most points so they are the “best,” but we all know the Penguins are the best team in the East and the best team in the league. It’s not really up for debate either. The Penguins have won 10 in a row, trail the Rangers by four points with a game in hand and have had this good of a season to date without their best player and without the best player in the world. Take the Rangers’ best player (Henrik Lundqvist) off the team for all but eight games this season, and the Rangers wouldn’t be trying to fend off teams from taking their No. 1 seed. They might be fending off the Canadiens and Islanders for the 16th seed in the conference.

The Penguins haven’t lost since Feb. 19. They lost 6-2 to in Buffalo that day and then shut out the Rangers two days later, and have been picking up two points per game since. They have outscored their opponents 40-15 during the streak and seven of the wins over have come against playoff teams, and oh yeah, they are just now getting No. 87 back in the lineup. Do we even play the rest of the season out, or should we just give them the Stanley Cup now? (That’s only half reverse jinx because it’s also half true.)

Am I scared of the Rangers’ current status? Was Bobby Abreu scared of the right-field wall at Yankee Stadium? The injuries and illnesses on the Rangers are starting to pile up, the offense (aside from the first line) has disappeared and the defense has been off and on for about a month. You can either say this is happening at the worst time (down the stretch with the top seed on the line), or that’s it happening at an OK time (prior to the playoffs). Either way it’s happening and it needs to be fixed.

The Rangers don’t need the No. 1 seed. The No. 1 seed means nothing. Home-ice advantages no longer truly exist in the NHL with cookie-cutter rinks and suites and boxes filling arenas, and fans being priced out around the league as if Yankee Stadium has become the home for every good (or Canadian) NHL team. It’s always nice to have the extra home game in a best-of-7 series, but this isn’t the NBA where it’s a necessity. It’s only a luxury in the NHL.

If the Rangers are the No. 1 seed or the No. 4 seed (let’s keep giving away top seeds to division winners!), they’re going to have a tough first-round opponent. If you want to play Washington, winners of four straight, in the first round then maybe we can get together and I will show you some first-round footage from 2010-11 and 2008-09. And if you want to play Philadelphia, well it’s not something anyone should “want” whether or not the law of averages suggests the Rangers shouldn’t play the Flyers in the playoffs. Every team in the Eastern Conference Playoff Picture will be a tough test for the Rangers, and there’s no point of hoping to play one team over another since it usually doesn’t work out the way you want it to, and even if it does, it will likely backfire.

Thursday night was a disaster. The matchup did lose some of its luster knowing that Marty Biron would be playing instead of Henrik Lundqvist, but even so, the Rangers have now lost their last three meetings with the Penguins by a combined score of 11-3 and two of those games were when Lundqvist played. The Penguins are the class of the league right now, and the seemingly inevitable conference finals meeting between the Rangers and Bruins can be put on hold.

Here are a few thoughts on the Rangers following Thursday night’s loss to the Penguins.

Henrik Lundqvist
Prior to getting sick and missing the last two games, Henrik Lundqvist had been in a funk. It wasn’t a Mike Dunham-like funk or whatever-is-going-on-with-the-Boston-goalies-right-now funk, but when you’re the best goalie in the league with a 1.88 GAA any kind of letdown is noticeable.

When I first heard that the Rangers were calling up Chad Johnson from the AHL, I hoped that Lundqvist wasn’t hurt or injured (yes, there’s a difference between the two). And while you never want someone to have the flu, I’m just glad it wasn’t anything serious because if Lundqvist is out for any extended period of time or (knock on wood) the playoffs, you might as well pack up the locker room and we’ll you in 2012-13. Lundqvist is the best player on the team and has been now since Jaromir Jagr left, and he might have been even when Jagr was still here. The team is built around him, and without him in net, the game against the Penguins on Thursday night lost its luster and the result is easier to accept knowing that the King wasn’t in the net.

The Lines
Remember the conversations about how “deep” the Rangers are? Was that this year? If we’re going to talk about depth, let’s keep it to defensive depth.

Brad Richards came to the Rangers to feed Marian Gaborik the puck. That’s why he got a nine-year deal worth $60 million. After a rocky start to the season and a lack of chemistry, John Tortorella split them up, and that was that. Why give them any time to learn to play together? Now after five months on separate lines, Tortorella has decided to put his best goal scorer and best playmaker on the same line. What a concept!

I have a love/hate relationship with Tortorella. I’m not into his press conference and media personality the way that some people. But these same people love Sean Avery’s so-called “effectiveness” on the ice. (And isn’t it ironic that these two guys don’t like each other?) Tortorella has this sense of entitlement around him that you get with winning the Stanley Cup even if he can thank Richards for his ring. Winning in the major sports has evolved into the same result as winning an election as a campaign manager. You will always have that one win to fall back on and you can always get a job because of it. In Tortorella’s case, I guess winning the Cup once lets you act however you want (just ask Tim Thomas), but Tortorella isn’t Scotty Bowman. I’m not sure he’s even Terry Crisp. I don’t expect him to change his ways now or ever, and I’m sure the beat writers and reporters who are in love with his personality would be upset with me for even suggesting it.

The first line has now scored six consecutive goals for the Rangers. The good news is that the Rangers finally have a line that other teams fear and a line that makes opposing fans say, “Oh eff!” when they’re on the ice. The bad news is the first line has scored the last six goals for the Rangers, and the depth of scoring starts and ends with them right now.

I know that Ryan Callahan will certainly help the offense on the second line and that will bump someone out of the lineup from one of the bottom two lines, but it shouldn’t be…

Mats Zuccarello
Let’s get this out of the way, so everyone knows where I stand: I love Mats Zuccarello. I love his style of play and what he brings offensively to the team. (Sorry, Monzo.) I know John Tortorella doesn’t like him since he stuck him in Hartford all season to play with the Whale, and he isn’t one of Tortorella’s “favorites.” But now all of a sudden the team needs “offensive creativity” so they call up the 5-foot-7 wing that they cast off to the AHL after three games with the team back in October.

Zuccarello has now played in six games for the Rangers this season, or the same amount of games as John Scott. No one will fight Scott (or at least he won’t get anyone to go consistently he claims) because of his size, and he has complained openly about this. He isn’t someone who can play and he isn’t on the ice fighting or changing the momentum or giving the team a spark when he was playing, so why was he ever playing in the first place? The idea that “he’s a big body that takes up space” isn’t cutting it for a first-place team in the best league in the world. I have to wonder if Marian Gaborik sees John Scott in practice and wonders if he’s even in the NHL anymore, and I would set the money line that John Scott has even scored one goal in a practice shooting drill on Henrik Lundqvist at +730.

Zuccarello deserved to be on this team for more of the season than he has been whether or not they did fine without him, and now he deserves to play more than he is playing. I know that nothing will change because he isn’t one of Tortorella’s “boys” but the idea that some of the other names that have rolled through this roster were given a chance before him is disgusting. He doesn’t belong buried on the bench barely getting 7:37 of ice time like he did on Thursday. He’s here to help jumpstart an offense that goes into hiding, so let him do that.

No. 87
The game is better when Crosby plays. It’s so much better that I feel like it might be necessary for the Penguins to sign Dave Semenko and Marty McSorley to make sure Crosby isn’t sidelined for a year again.

No. 87 is the textbook example of why fighting is needed in the NHL. Everyone knows about his concussion-related problems and there isn’t a team in the league that doesn’t have plans to try and put Crosby on the shelf again as bad as it sounds. (I know other fans are looking for it from conversations and Twitter and Facebook.) Without players being allowed to police themselves, there’s no doubt that players would take shots at Crosby and that someone would try to run him. Even though he’s the poster boy for scoring, he might also be it for fighting.

Read More