fbpx

Tag: Rick Nash

Blogs • Fake Mailbag

Mar 15, 2013

Fake Mailbag: March 15, 2013

It’s the debut of the Fake Mailbag with questions from Sam Rosen, Derrek Lee, Brian Cashman and Mark Teixeira.

I wanted a way to tie in multiple sports to one column without writing things in bullet points and trying to keep some sort of flow to it all and I didn’t really know how to make it all work. So I finally came up with the idea of a Fake Mailbag, which would allow me to create questions that I want to answer (it’s not as weird as it sounds … OK, maybe it’s a little weird) from real sports figures since they would never actually ask me these questions or ask anyone these questions. (Except for Brian Cashman. He actually did ask the question I wrote for him.)

We’ll take it slow with just a few questions this week and try to build it in the coming weeks, but I thought for this week it was important to address the Rangers’ and Yankees’ situations.

Why does John Tortorella always yell at me after his team loses?
– Sam R., New York, N.Y.

After Tuesday’s loss to Buffalo, Sam Rosen started John Tortorella’s postgame press conference by asking, “Do you think the Sabres were the hungrier team in this game?” Here’s how Tortorella responded.

“Oh, no … they were … no, no I don’t think the Sabres were the hungrier team. I thought we stunk and I’m not going to give Buffalo any credit. Well, I will give their third line credit. They outplay our top players and that can’t happen. I couldn’t be more disgusted and disappointed with the way our top guys played, the way we handled ourselves through it. That team was ripe to be beaten and we simply did not play the way we’re supposed to play. I don’t know what to tell you. Did you ask them? Did you ask them any questions? I don’t know why I always have to answer these questions. You should ask them occasionally about what happened. Did they answer your questions? Were they in the room? What did they say? Tell me. Let me ask some questions here.”

When Vince Vaughn’s character, Jamie O’Hare flips out on Rudy in Rudy at practice for his effort and Coach Parseghian asks him, “What’s the problem, O’Hare?” O’Hare responds, “Last practice and this asshole thinks it’s the Super Bowl.” Coach Parseghian answers, “You just summed up your entire sorry career here in one sentence!”

That’s what John Tortorella did with his Tier I meltdown. In 53 seconds, Tortorella summed up his time as head coach of the New York Rangers and discredited the Sabres’ win along the way (even though they were playing without Ryan Miller). It’s always everyone else’s fault. The players, the opponent, the media. It’s never John Tortorella’s fault.

But it didn’t end there.

After Tortorella asks the media if they asked his players any questions, which they obviously did since that’s their job, Rosen asks Tortorella to “talk about hunger around the net too,” and Tortorella looks at Rosen and then looks away and asks, “Does anybody else have a question?” Rosen goes to put the microphone to his face and Tortorella responds, “I’m sure you do, Sam.” So Rosen asks, “Well, the inconsistency, it’s got to be a little frustrating when you think that you’re starting to get inconsistent…” Tortorella cuts him off and says, “I just, I just told you what I thought. I told you what I thought.”

The Rangers aren’t good. They’re not bad. They’re average. That’s what you are when you win half of your games. And at 13-11-2 that’s what the Rangers have done in what has been a disastrous 62 percent of the season. And through that 62 percent, Tortorella hasn’t even hinted at the idea that any of the 13 losses could be any bit his fault.

I fully understand why Tortorella yells at and belittles Rosen in the postgame press conferences. Rosen broadcasts the Rangers games from high above ice level and has appeared in zero games for the Rangers this season or any season and he doesn’t create the line combinations or fill out the lineup, so it makes complete sense as to why the head coach of the team would take out his frustration on the MSG Network’s play-by-play man. Rosen clearly had a negative impact on Tuesday’s loss and it’s not like Tortorella has the power to decide who plays and when and who plays with who, and it’s not like it’s up to him to get the best out of the Rangers players. So while you might think I would feel sympathetic for Rosen, I don’t. It’s your fault the Rangers are in ninth place and can’t find any offensive consistency, Sam Rosen. Leave John Tortorella alone. He has nothing to do with this.

I’m 37 years old. I haven’t played in a baseball game since Sept. 28, 2011. I hit .267/.325/.446 in 2011. Why do Brian Cashman and the New York Yankees want me to play first base for them?
– Derrek Lee, Sacramento, Calif.

I’m not sure if Cashman suffered a concussion along with his broken ankle during his skydiving accident, but The Golden Knight is looking at his second-worst offseason as Yankees general manager. (The first obviously being when he decided that he would go into 2007 with Carl Pavano and Kei Igawa making up 40 percent of his rotation.)

If Cashman were to sign Lee, that would give the Yankees an Opening Day infield of Lee, Robinson Cano, Derek Jeter and Kevin Youkilis. The outfield would be Brett Garden, Ichiro Suzuki and we’re not sure of the third outfielder yet. The catcher will probably be Chris Stewart to catch CC Sabathia since personal catchers are always a good idea. That lineup would be good for the mid-2000s Orioles, but the 2013 Yankees?

Lee last played in a Major League game on Sept. 28, 2011. He hit .267/.325/.446 in 113 games for the Orioles and Pirates. It would be one thing if Lee was looking to rebound off a bad 2012 and could come on the cheap after a solid 2011 to show that he isn’t that far removed from being productive. But Lee isn’t looking to rebound off a bad 2012 because he didn’t play in 2012 and he isn’t coming on the cheap after a solid 2011 because he wasn’t good in 2011.

But none of this really even matters since Lee turned down the Yankees’ offer. That’s right. Derrek Lee, at 37, turned down FREE MONEY to put on the pinstripes and serve as a role player with no pressure for the most prestigious and popular team in baseball. He didn’t want guaranteed money and to be a major leaguer again for the MakeShift Yankees. And I thought things hit rock bottom when Cliff Lee left money on the table to go to Philadelphia. But I think Derrek Lee not taking an offer from the Yankees when he has no other offers and isn’t playing baseball anymore is rock bottom.

I can’t find Chipper Jones’ agent’s number anywhere. Do you have it?
– Brian C., Darien, Conn.

If you thought things were bad or miserable to embarrassing when there were rumors that Cashman wanted Lee, how did you feel when you found out that the general manager of the New York Yankees didn’t have the phone number of one of the game’s best players over the last 20 years?

I didn’t think for one second that Jones would come to the Yankees (and I didn’t want him to either just like I didn’t want Lee to take Cashman up on his offer) since he had played all 2,499 games in the majors with the Braves and had already taken less money during his career to stay a Brave forever. So why would he throw that all away and join the Makeshift Yankees? He wouldn’t and he was never going to.

Everyone can make fun of me and say that I’m the new Jason Giambi and that I’m getting paid $22.5 million a year to only play defense and that my career is in decline and that I’m overpaid and that I got a free pass to criticism because A-Rod won us the World Series in 2009, but everyone is going to miss me for the first two months of the season. You’ll see. They’re going to miss me. I know it. Theyre’ going to miss me, right? Right?!?!
– Mark T., Greenwich, Conn.

I felt like a Vegas sportsbook pulling the Steelers game off the board with Ben Roethlisberger’s playing status uncertain when it was announced Mark Teixeira would be out for up to 10 weeks because the news completely altered the “2013 Ladies and gentlemen…” race and I had to quickly change the odds. With Teixeira out for two months I had to adjust the odds for this season’s overall winner and here are the current odds:

Joe Girardi: -600

Eduardo Nunez: -450

Francisco Cervelli: -320

Mark Teixeira: -250

Boone Logan -180

Field: EVEN

Teixeira is out with a strained wrist. A strained wrist. Not a broken wrist. Not something that requires surgery or a cast or a pin or a screw or reconstruction or a titanium rod. A strained wrist.

On Feb. 7, I broke down Mark Teixeira’s interview with the Wall Street Journal. And in that interview he hinted at the idea that he might break down.

“To think that I’m going to get remarkably better, as I get older and breaking down a little bit more, it’s not going to happen.”

It only took 27 days for that little bit of foreshadowing from the $22.5 million-per-year first baseman to come to fruition.

But to answer your question, Mark T. from Greenwich, Conn., I won’t miss Mark Teixeira’s April at the plate, but I will miss his defensive skills and the amount of errors and runs he saves at first base. If Teixeira would suck up his pride and try to hit to the left side of the field from the left side of the plate or just drop two or three bunts down the third-base line to end the Michael Kay “Martini Glass” Shift then I would really miss Mark Teixeira because he might be the .292/.383/.565 guy he was in 2009 and not the .251/.332/.475 he has become and was in 2012.

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 22, 2013

New York Rangers Hockey: ‘Grab Points When We Can’

John Tortorella was the most pissed off he’s been all season after Thursday’s 3-2 shootout loss in Ottawa.

You would think you could tell how pissed off John Tortorella is by how short and snippy his answers are, but that’s only part of the equation. To really tell how pissed off Tortorella is just listen to how many names of reporters he drops in his answers following a loss. On Thursday night in Ottawa, he used “Sam” for Sam Rosen of MSG, “Pat” for Pat Leonard of the Daily News and “Zip” for Steve Zipay of Newsday. It was the most pissed off Tortorella has been all season.

Keeping with tradition, here is the analysis of John Tortorella’s postgame press conference from Thursday night’s 3-2 shootout loss to the Senators.

On what areas he sees improvement.

“Oh, Sam I’m not going to go over areas and all that. I’m glad we got a point. I still don’t think our full lineup is playing, so we just got to keep grinding away until we get people playing and try to grab points when we can.”

Aww, poor John Tortorella and the Rangers. They don’t have their full team! They don’t have all of their best players! They don’t have their complete roster! Paul MacLean’s Senators just lost their Norris Trophy-winning defenseman for the season with a torn Achilles and overcame a late third-period deficit with their backup goalie after their starter sprained his ankle and still beat the Rangers. And Jason Spezza has only played five games (and has five points) due to injury. I didn’t hear Paul MacLean crying about his team’s injuries after Thursday’s game.

No one is going to feel bad for the Rangers and no one should feel bad for them. Yes, it sucks that Rick Nash has missed two straight games and will miss his third on Saturday, but part of being a good team is having depth and the Rangers don’t have much of it even when they are at full strength. Some people want to blame the lack of depth on the Nash deal that saw Brandon Dubinsky and Artem Anismov get shipped to Columbus, but if you want two dimes for a quarter then I can’t help you.

If the Yankees used “Heroes remembered, legends born” last season and are going with “A Timeless Legacy” in 2013, well John Tortorella gave us the 2012-13 Rangers’ slogan: “Grab points when we can.” Because when the lockout ended, coming off an Eastern Conference Finals appearance and with the addition of Rick Nash, “Grab points when we can” was exactly how I thought this season would play out. I was terribly mistaken to think that the number 1 seed a year ago could possibly keep up their level of play. Stupid me. So eff it! “Grab points when we can!” Let’s go Rangers!

On whether or not he sees the power play getting more consistent.

“I thought the past couple of games it’s been OK. We scored a big goal tonight. We still … we don’t have enough guys playing. We don’t. But we get a point, so we just gotta keep trying to grind way and get points until we have our full team playing here.”

Here are the facts aside from the most telling stat the the Rangers are 4-for-31 on the power play in February and last in the league on the power play on the year.

1. Rick Nash didn’t play on Thursday night.

2. Of Rick Nash’s 292 career goals, 83 (28 percent) of them have come on the power play. Of Rick Nash’s 267 career assists, 100 of them have come on the power play (37 percent).

3. Of Rick Nash’s 183 power-play points, one of them has come with the Rangers.

What does all of this tell us? Two things.

1. With Rick Nash in the lineup, the power play still sucks and Tortorella shouldn’t be blaming his absence on the special teams’ struggles.

2. The players Rick Nash plays with on the power play shouldn’t be on the power play.

How do we know this?

Rick Nash was a productive special teams player on the worst team in the league. He’s now supposedly playing with better players on the man advantage, but for some reason the power play isn’t scoring and it certainly isn’t because of him.

The power play needs new personnel. Michael Del Zotto doesn’t belong on the first unit and that needs to be the first change. Pierre McGuire told Mike Francesa that when Tortorella was an assistant coach he was a special teams expert, which only further complicates the situation since this should have been fixed by now.

(Everything else from Tortorella’s answer is the same as the first answer. Poor, Torts! He doesn’t have his best player! But his team has had the lead in their last three losses, but let’s not talk about that.)

On what was working on the line when Halpern jumped up with Callahan and Pyatt in the third.

“They forechecked. They had the puck.”

Can’t argue there.

On why he thought it was necessary to make that line change.

“Because we weren’t developing any offense, Pat.”

Fair enough.

On if he sympathizes a team that lost their number 1 goalie.

“Do I sympathize for what’s happened there? No, I … No.”

Then no one is going to sympathize with your injuries, so why keep bringing them up?

On if the play that injured Anderson was an accident.

“He was tripped. It was a goal too.”

OK.

On what happened with the quick whistle on Halpern’s waved-off goal.

“They said they must have lost site of the puck. I didn’t get an explanation. I don’t bother with that anymore.”

You don’t bother with should-have-been goals, but just said that Chris Kreider getting tripped into Craig Anderson should have been a goal. OK then…

On if Gaborik played better for the whole 60 minutes.

“Are you asking me a question or telling me, Zip? Ask me the question.”

“That line played well.”

If Gaborik’s line is the only line that plays well on Saturday night in Montreal, I’ll have a postgame press conference to analyze on Sunday.

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

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 13, 2013

Dreaming of a Rangers-Bruins Postseason Series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then they stop it abruptly and start a breakaway contest.

It makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Blogs • Rangers

Feb 6, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On if the problems on the power play are correctable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hard
Taylor Pyatt

Scared/Tentative
Carl Hagelin
Brian Boyle
Jeff Halpern

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

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

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

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

Read More