Tuukka Rask – Page 2 – Keefe To The City

May 16, 2013

Preparation for Rangers-Bruins Postseason Battle

The Rangers and Bruins are meeting in the playoffs for the first time since 1973, so obviously an email exchange with Mike Hurley was needed to talk about the latest chapter in New York vs. Boston.

For the first time since 1973 the Rangers and Bruins will meet in the playoffs. It’s the latest chapter in the illustrious history of New York vs. Boston postseason meetings and the only logical to way to handle this situation was with an email exchange with Mike Hurley from CBS Boston.

Keefe: It’s been a while. It’s actually been 92 days since our last one of these. But after what happened on Monday night and what’s going to happen between now and Memorial Day, I figured why not bother Mike Hurley. Or Michael Francis Hurley as those in Boston know you by.

The Rangers’ Game 7 win was boring and that’s the way I liked it. After the excitement of the Game 6 win at Madison Square Garden on Sunday afternoon and the 29 beers that followed, I wanted a blowout. I didn’t want to have to worry about the Capitals getting a 1-0 lead and then watching the Rangers struggle to generate offense until the clock ran out on the season. I got my wish thanks to Henrik Lundqvist and the Rangers have at least four more games left in the season.

But during the third period of the Rangers’ Game 7 blowout, I was flipping back and forth to the Bruins-Maple Leafs game and I told my girlfriend when they trailed 4-1 that I had seen this Bruins team come back from similar deficits before. Of course none of those comebacks happened in a Game 7 with their season on the line, but still, the Bruins are never out of a game and they probed that even in their losses in Games 5 and 6 to Toronto.

Sure enough, within the hour you were documenting euphoria at TD Garden on Twitter and the Bruins were alive and well and awaiting the Rangers on Thursday night.

I want to know what went through your mind from the Maple Leafs’ fourth goal until the point when Patrice Bergeron was jumping around center ice. (I only wish he rolled around like Theo Fleury.)

Hurley: Hi Neil. Thanks for emailing me. I always love it so much when you email me. It always brightens my day to see “Keefe, Neil” pop up in the inbox, so thank you.

Being in the building for Game 7 was without a doubt the most unreal sporting event I’ve ever attended in my life. I’ve been to just about every home Bruins game this year, and the volume level even in the opening minutes was far beyond any noise the home crowd had made all season. Of course, when Nazem Kadri buried the Leafs’ fourth goal, it was almost silent. You could actually hear the Leafs fans in the building cheering, and there couldn’t have been more than 500 of them in the whole place.

It’s funny, I was watching a game earlier this series from my living room when the Bruins were in Toronto, and as I tend to do when I watch sports, I was shouting, oohing and ahhing, screaming “WOOF!” and “WOW!” every three seconds. My wife looked at me and said, “How do you watch games in the press box and stay silent?” I had no answer. But whenever I am covering games, I am silent, probably because I’m work and I have something to dedicate my focus on. But man, when Bergeron released that snap shot from the blue line, once it made it past the first white jersey, I knew it was going in, and I just let out an audible, “Holy shit.”

I really don’t have the same emotional investment in the team that I did growing up. It’s only natural to have a different feeling for the team when you’re covering them for your job for several years, so it’s not like I was torn up about them losing. In fact, I didn’t really care — I was starting to make plans with all the free time that opened up on my calendar.

But when that goal hit the net, I’ve never heard a crowd get that loud. Ever. My arms actually got chills and went numb. You know me pretty well, and you know that I may be in my mid-20s and appear to be a somewhat lively person, but on the inside I am a grumpy, 80-year-old man. So for that to happen, it was just incredible. Indescribable really, but I’m just happy I got to be there to experience it first-hand.

No, nobody hacked my email to send this rainbows and sunshine message. This is really me.

Keefe: I really don’t have the same emotional investment in the team that I did growing up. It’s only natural to have a different feeling for the team when you’re covering them for your job for several years, so it’s not like I was torn up about them losing. In fact, I didn’t really care — I was starting to make plans with all the free time that opened up on my calendar.

That was the saddest, most-effed up paragraph I have ever read from you and that means a lot considering you write a lot of effed-up paragraphs, especially during football season. But I think watching your fandom dwindle and be destroyed as a member of the mainstream media and essentially a beat writer is a conversation for another day. If you finish any of your future columns with “Time will tell” or “Maybe it will happen” or “We’ll see” then I think you will finally get your wish and our “friendship” will be over. If the Giants’ second Super Bowl win over the Patriots didn’t end the “friendship” then I don’t think a Rangers’ series win over the Bruins will. So only your mindset fully transforming into that of a beat writer/reporter can end this thing.

Last year we both talked endlessly about the Rangers and Bruins meeting in the Eastern Conference finals, but the Bruins didn’t live up to their end of the bargain. This year we hoped it could happen, but the Rangers would have to make the playoffs to make it possible. We didn’t get the conference finals, but we’re getting the conference semifinals, which is still good enough for me.

It’s actually insane that these two teams haven’t met in the playoffs since 1973 when you consider the NHL postseason format and the fact that the Rangers have seen the Capitals in four of the last five playoff (or the last four playoffs the Rangers have been a part of) and the Bruins have seen the Canadiens in three of the last six postseasons. What’s that thing you say? “Sports!”

So we finally get our wish with the Rangers coming off a dominant Game 7 performance and winning four of the last five games against the Capitals and the Bruins coming off an improbable Game 7 win after nearly blowing away a 3-1 series lead. While I said during Game 7 that I fully believed in a Bruins’ third-period comeback, I also started to think about what a Game 7 loss at home and blown 3-1 lead would mean for Claude Julien. Here’s what Julien has done as head coach in the four seasons prior to this one.

2011-12: Lost Game 7 of quarterfinals to Washington at home in overtime

2010-11: Won three Game 7s in one postseason, overcame 2-0 series deficit twice and won the Cup in Vancouver

2009-10: Blew 3-0 series lead to Philadelphia in semifinals and blew 3-0 lead in Game 7 at home

2008-09: Lost Game 7 of quarterfinals to Carolina at home in overtime

Since I talk to you and other Boston sports fans frequently, there seems to be a large anti-Julien movement and it’s pretty ridiculous. The pro-John Tortorella base in New York is far greater than the anti-John Tortorella base and this is what Tortorella has done in New York.

2011-12: Lost to New Jersey in 6 in conference finals

2010-11: Made playoffs on last day of season thanks to help and lost to Washington in 5 in quarterfinals

2009-10: Missed playoffs

2008-09: Blew 3-1 series lead to Washington in quarterfinals

Based on the two resumes (and I didn’t even include Julien leading the overachieving Bruins to the 8-seed in the 2007-08 playoffs and forcing a Game 7 against Montreal), I’m not exactly sure how the perception of the two is what it is. Sure, Julien does some weird things like play Jaromir Jagr alongside two players that aren’t worthy of sitting next to him in the locker room let alone playing on the same line with him, but Julien did something in Boston that 16 head coaches before him since 1972 couldn’t do. John Tortorella acts like he’s done something in New York when he hasn’t done anything since he won in Tampa Bay nine years ago, and according to you that shouldn’t have even happened.

So why is Julien hated in Boston (for the most part) and Tortorella loved in New York (for the most part)? Or do those two perceptions only exist in the world of sports radio?

Hurley: Can a friendship end if it never really existed to begin with? I guess we’ll find out in the coming days.

As for the anti-Julien movement, it is definitely real and I definitely don’t agree with it. I understand that Claude is not the perfect coach. He’s a defensive-minded guy, and he seems averse to letting guys like Tyler Seguin run free and try to score goals. Defense is boring, and fans often get frustrated when the team goes through long scoring droughts. It’s only natural for the coach to get blamed, that’s just how it goes. Sports!

But you laid it out nicely. The guy gets his team to playoffs every single year. They don’t always make it to the conference finals, but who does? The Penguins, I think, are unanimously the best team in the NHL over the past five years, and I think most hockey fans love Dan Bylsma as a head coach. The Penguins in the four years leading up to this season have won the Cup, lost in the second round and twice lost in the first round. Injuries play a role, sure, but that’s not a whole heck of a lot better than the Bruins’ finishes the past four years.

Probably the biggest reason that Claude’s Cup win in 2011 isn’t earning him much slack these days is that things looked pretty bad for him back in the first round that year. In fact, fans were calling for his firing in December of that season, before the Bruins went on a 14-5-3 run. In Game 7, if Jeff Halpern doesn’t deflect Nathan Horton’s slap shot in overtime of Game 7 against Montreal, the Canadiens could have won that game. Julien would have been fired. Peter Chiarelli too, probably. Extensions for David Krejci, Milan Lucic … who knows? One bounce of a puck that goes the other way, and Julien would have been gone.

So the Cup win obviously secured his job for the time being, and it helped excuse the first-round exit last year. I think if they had lost to Toronto, he would have kept his job for next year, but it would have been very tenuous. He’d be a candidate for a midseason axing, and fans would largely be happy. Most of those anti-Claude fans don’t have a viable replacement in mind, they just want him gone. Maybe the Bruins could bring back Dave Lewis. Fans would be crying for Claude back after five games.

As for Tortorella, I’ll just say that had he lost his job after losing to Washington this year, I wouldn’t have been too broken up. If the Calgary Flames had been credited with the game-winning goal they scored, then maybe TORTS! wouldn’t spend his days with that poo-eating grin and I-know-everything-and-you-suck attitude. Alas, we are here, and sure enough, I don’t think either coach is in danger of losing his job, no matter what happens in this series.

Keefe: Along the lines with the “I don’t understand why fans are the way they are” perception is the idea that Tuukka Rask isn’t Tim Thomas for Bruins fans. But who is? I don’t see any other NHL goalies writing on their Facebook page about gay marriage or how Barack Obama is ruining the country. And I don’t see Tuukka Rask taking a year off of hockey in hopes of returning the following year and starting for his Olympic team.

In New York, there is a very small percent of fans who think Henrik Lundqvist is overrated (this very small group of people are unintelligent) and are quick to cite his under-.500 postseason record as a reason for being overrated. (And if being the reigning Vezina winner makes you overrated then does that mean there aren’t any good goalies in the NHL the way that BABIP suggests that there aren’t any good hitters in MLB, just lucky ones?) But if Henrik wasn’t as good as he is, he wouldn’t even have a postseason record because the Rangers offense since 2005-06 certainly wasn’t going to get him there. So Lundqvist is the beneficiary of an offensively-challenged team once again and starts games knowing that one goal could mean a loss. Put him on Pittsburgh and no one would be talking about how exciting the Islanders were for six games because the Islanders would have been run out of the first round in four games.

Henrik Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world. That’s a fact. But Tuukka Rask isn’t far behind and is certainly in the top tier of goalies in the league and I was surprised to him get snubbed from being a Vezina finalist. And for years now it seems like it’s been Lundqvist vs. Rask in any afternoon Rangers-Bruins game and now we’ll finally get to see them square off in a seven-game series.

Tuukka Rask isn’t Tim Thomas, but I’m still scared of his ability to shut down the Rangers, who have a hard enough time scoring against mediocre goaltending. I think with Lundqvist and Rask we’re headed for seven games and maybe seven total goals in the series. Would you agree?

Hurley: Definitely. I think you said it best when you said Lundqvist is the best, but Rask isn’t far behind. It’s been pretty ridiculous this season, in the few instances Rask let up a soft goal or lost a game or two, hearing people call the radio or comment online that Rask is no Thomas, as if Thomas was this perfect goaltender who never failed. Make no mistake, Thomas in the 2011 postseason was unreal, but the guy was hardly a model of consistency. Nobody let in more bad, back-breaking goals than Thomas, but because he rode off into the Facebook sunset, he’s only remembered for that glorious run to the Cup.

So it was good that the Bruins didn’t lose that first-round series, because Rask would have wrongly been blamed, and people would keep calling about how bad he is, how he can’t win in the postseason, blah, blah, blah.

But yeah, I think back to one of these talks we had, where I made an off-the-cuff comment about every single Bruins-Rangers game ending 1-0 one way or the other. Then, for the first time in your life, you did actual research, and you discovered that 11 out of the previous 15 meetings had been decided by just one goal. This year, one game was won 3-1, another one in OT and the other won in a shootout. I don’t see any reason why things will suddenly change in the postseason, when Tortorella’s and Julien’s teams bear down even more defensively.

Some people say it’s “boring” because it won’t be wide open, high-scoring hockey. But I haven’t watched a Rangers-Bruins game in years that wasn’t thrilling, so I’m looking forward to it.

Keefe: I love when people put out “Keys for the Rangers in Game 3” or “What the Bruins Must Do to Win Game 6” because really it’s all meaningless and just a waste of time for talking heads to fill space on pregame shows or for lazy writers and bloggers to meet story quotas or word counts. Because I don’t remember anyone saying, “The Rangers will beat the Capitals if Rick Nash doesn’t score a goal” or “The Bruins will eliminate the Maple Leafs if Tyler Seguin scores zero goals.” But the two best pure scorers in the upcoming series combined for 14 games played, no goals and three assists (two for Nash and one for Seguin) in the quarterfinals combined. How is it possible that the former London Knight and the former Plymouth Whaler (just went Pierre McGuire on you to see how it feels) scored zero goals combined in 14 games? The only answer I can think of is: it’s not.

This is why I’m nervous about our mutually agreed prediction of seven 1-0 games in this series. Both of these players are going to go off in this series because the law of odds and science and “being due” and everything in life says they are. They have to. And if they do, maybe this series will turn into the 2011-12 quarterfinals between the Penguins and Flyers and there will be 15 goals a game and brawls and sloppy goaltending and then NBC Sports and CBC and NHL Network and every media outlet can scrap the word “expert.”

But in real life, it’s scary to know the depth of the Rangers and Bruins if they were both able to win seven-game series with their two actual superstars contributing noting and it’s scary to think how good both of these teams can be if Nash and Seguin are Nash and Seguin starting on Thursday. I guess there’s a reason why the East was supposed to be decided between the Rangers, Bruins and Penguins and all three are part of the final four now.

Hurley: You obviously didn’t read my Bruins-Leafs Game 7 preview, in which I wrote the Bruins’ key will be to lose Dennis Seidenberg on his first shift, get Matt Bartkowski going offensively, fall behind 4-1 and then turn it on in the final 10 minutes to pull off the comeback. Stories like that show why I’m an expert and why I get paid so much money.

The difference between Nash and Seguin is that Nash is a perennial all-star who’s topped 30 goals seven times in his career. Seguin is a 21-year-old, and while he looked like Wayne Gretzky over in Switzerland during the lockout while wearing his flame jersey for being the team’s leading scorer, I don’t think we really know what he is yet. At least, we don’t know what he is beyond his potential.

His goal drought hasn’t been for lack of chances. He’s just somehow, somewhere lost his finishing ability. He’s become known around here as “high glass,” as he and Rich Peverley in particular tend to miss the net by about 10 feet on most of their shots. I suppose it can be chalked up to growing pains, which are to be expected, and also the realization that though Seguin is a very good player, he’s not Steven Stamkos, who turned 22 in the middle of last season … when he scored 60 goals. This year, Seguin turned 21 and scored 16 goals in 48 games. In a full season, that’s a 27-goal pace. That’s pretty good, but not great, and I don’t think he’s the pure scorer you fear he might be. I think the Bruins are going to be a lot more worried about Nash than the Rangers are about Seguin.

But boy oh boy, the young kid from Brampton, Ontario who grew up idolizing Stevie Y sure can skate, Edzo.

Keefe: I have always been high on Seguin and I think Claude Julien’s decision to not play him at the beginning of the 2010-11 playoffs only made me higher on him. It took injuries for Seguin to get into the lineup before he single-handedly saved the Bruins’ season against Tampa Bay and saved Julien’s job. Is it too late for me to get a ticket for the “Fire Claude Julien” bandwagon? I will pay more than face value on StubHub if I need to.

I haven’t been this excited about a playoff hockey series since … well … I guess last year’s Eastern Conference finals against the Devils. (It just seems like it’s been longer.) But this series is different because it’s the first time it’s happened in our lifetime and the first time we have been able to go head-to-head with New York vs. Boston since Super Bowl XLVI.

I know at one point this series you will write a column with screen shots breaking down a head shot from a Ranger on a Bruin or you will tweet about the Rangers diving or whining about calls since that’s what you Boston writers do. And I know you will also make an excuse for a dangerous Milan Lucic play that goes uncalled because that’s also what you guys do. But I’m glad to be a part of it because it’s more fun to have those I read and follow in Boston talking about the Rangers rather than the Canadiens or Maple Leafs or Canucks and their fans.

After three regular-season meetings this year (even though they were all within the first couple weeks of the season) I believe the Rangers match up well against the Bruins (and the Rangers have Henrik Lundqvist, which is a good enough reason to pick them against anyone). I don’t know if the Rangers can win in five and I don’t want to be the guy who picks the series to end in six because that’s the easy way out, so I’m going to go with Rangers in seven. I’ll see you in New York for Game 3 and you’ll see me in Boston for Game 7.

Hurley: First thing’s first: I don’t whine or complain. I lay down the law. I can state with 300 percent confidence that based on my judgment, I should be in Brendan Shanahan’s position. It’s kind of nuts, really, that the NHL hasn’t reached out to me to take that unenviable job for them. I mean, I didn’t ask to have this power and perspective, but we’re all dealt hands in life, and mine is to determine punishment on illegal hockey hits.

And this comes from you, the same person who cried for a suspension on Eric Fehr when he elbowed Derick Brassard in the chest and then followed through by scraping the guy’s chin. Just really shameful work by you, but I can’t say I’m surprised. Typical Neil Keefe stuff there, and I can’t wait for more of it over the next two weeks. And by “can’t wait” I mean I’ll probably block you and report you for spam on Twitter by the middle of Game 2.

I’m not much into predictions because they are stupid. People get them wrong 99 percent of the time, and they luck into getting them right once in a blue moon, and then they brag about it, even though the circumstances of what actually happened would have been completely impossible to predict before the games took place.

But because you picked the Rangers in 7, and because you’re always wrong about everything ever, and because it drives you crazy when people make predictions for series to end in six games, I’ll go with the Bruins in six. You can still come up to Boston for the day that Game 7 is scheduled, and I can give you some more Wiffle Ball lessons.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Feb 13, 2013

Dreaming of a Rangers-Bruins Postseason Series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then they stop it abruptly and start a breakaway contest.

It makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Rangers

Jan 23, 2013

Rangers Better Be Ready for Rematch with Bruins

The Rangers haven’t won a game and the Bruins haven’t lost a game, so obviously it was time for an email exchange with Mike Miccoli.

The bad news is the Rangers are winless. The good news it’s only been two games. However, the troublesome news is that the season is only 48 games long and there really isn’t any time for a losing streak.

Mike Miccoli, who covers the Bruins for The Hockey Writers, contributes to this site and also happened to be my roommate for freshman year of college, joined me to talk about what happened between the Rangers and Bruins on Opening Night in Boston and what to expect this season, including their rematch on Wednesday night at Madison Square Garden.

Keefe: The first thing I thought of when I heard the lockout was over was that I wouldn’t be able to read your sarcastic tweets about not being able to watch hockey anymore. Actually I take that back. The first thing I thought was “Woooooooooooooooo!” and then I thought about your tweets. After two games I’m not so sure I want hockey back.

The Rangers are 0-2 and for someone who takes regular season losses like season-ending losses (see: my take on the Yankees), this start sucks. The Rangers lost in Boston on Saturday and then were embarrassed at home on Sunday. Henrik Lundqvist was pulled in Game 2 of the year after not being pulled once in 2011-12. He has given up seven goals in two games. I think he gave up seven goals all of last year.

But I’m sure you don’t want to hear me complain. The Patriots were just destroyed at home by the Ravens with a Super Bowl trip on the line and Tom Brady’s legacy took another hit. But hey, at least your hockey team is 2-0 and will be when I walk in the MSG doors for the first time this year on Wednesday night.

Miccoli: Tom Brady is a legend even though he can’t throw the ball and catch it at the same time. You should have learned that last year. But seriously, how are things in New York? Is Torts on the hot seat? Lundqvist demand a trade yet? Think about this for a second: by Thursday morning, the New York Rangers could be 0-3. That’s six percent of the 2013 season completely wasted for a team that so, so many predicted to come out of the East.

Now I know what you’re thinking: it’s early. Of course it is, but when will the Rangers gain traction? For me, the biggest issue is all of the passengers. Guys like Marian Gaborik, Chris Kreider and Carl Hagelin have been invisible so far. When three of your supposed, All-Star top-six forwards are just watching, that’s a major problem.

The Bruins, on the other hand, have been firing on all cylinders. Did you watch the Winnipeg game? Ondrej Pavelec owes his two posts a steak dinner and a six-pack each for bailing him out so many times. Realistically speaking, the Bruins should have won that game 8-1, maybe even 9-1 if it wasn’t for so many dings. In net, Tuukka Rask is making Bruins’ fans forget about Tim Thomas quicker than they forgot about the lockout once they charged hundreds of dollars to their credit cards for crappy balcony seats.

I just hope the renovations at MSG are complete enough so that Rask doesn’t have to use that excuse on Wednesday.

Keefe: It’s too bad about the Patriots. I was really hoping they would win the AFC Championship and head to their sixth Super Bowl in 12 years. It’s really too bad.

Please don’t bring up the MSG renovations. It was one of the last remaining buildings that had that old-school feel to it and now it looks like every other modern arena on the inside. Sure, the amenities are awesome and the new seats are better than the cheap Metro North-like plastic seats (or the T commuter rail seats for you and I know you’re used to those), but I will miss the look and feel of the old interior. It might as well be the cement block with no character on Causeway Street in Boston. Actually, I take that back. Nothing can be that bad.

You’re right about Gaborik and Kreider and Hagelin. Too many times have they been out there for Sunday Skate watching the play rather than being in the play or trying to make something happen. But you know who hasn’t stood around and watched the play happen? Rick Nash.

When it comes to Nash, I haven’t been this excited for a player’s arrival in New York since Alex Rodriguez in 2004. And that’s either a good thing when you think about the two AL MVPs and arguably the best postseason for anyone ever in 2009. Or it’s a bad thing when you think about the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2012 postseasons, the admission to using performance-enhancing drugs or any of the 9,817 headlines he made for non-baseball related events.

We’ll get to your Bruins, but after two games of seeing Rick Nash as a Ranger, he has been the player I thought he would be and the player I was willing to trade the whole system for last February. He scored his first goal as a Ranger on Sunday against the Penguins and had several other high-quality scoring chances in the game as well as on Saturday against the Bruins. If his play continues at this level and the rest of the team realizes that the season has started and Derek Stepan and Michael Del Zotto are taking off the first unit on the power play, Nash will have quite the season.

Miccoli: I’m actually elated that Rick Nash ended up in New York since I was getting sick and tired of hearing about how he’d look good in a Bruins uniform for the past year. Little did I know that Glen Sather would be able to frisk Scott Howson in the deal, making it one of the more lopsided trades in recent memory.

Here’s the thing with Nash: I think he’s one of the most overrated players in the NHL. I get that he never had any help in Columbus and the best center he played with was a past-his-prime Sergei Federov but for his $7.8 million cap hit, he’s going to end up as more of a burden than a savior for a Rangers team that’s already pretty well stacked. Sure, he’s a physical player who will help get the momentum going eventually and score a decent number of goals but I think he could crack under the pressure in New York. I mean, he was playing in Columbus and only scored 40-plus goals twice in nine seasons, eclipsing 70-plus points once. ONCE! Want to know who has a similar trend in point totals in fewer seasons? David Krejci. And he’s not even the Bruins’ No. 1 center.

If Nash couldn’t pad his stats in Columbus where he was the entire show, I don’t know how he could in New York when there are plenty of other scorers who could pose a threat to opposing teams. I should probably mention his postseason experience of a whopping four games since 2002-03, but I’d rather you not go Andy Bernard on me and punch a wall this early in the season.

But I guess when you can acquire an All-Star player who is consistent for spare parts that you were looking to get rid of anyway, it’s not a terrible thing.

Keefe: “Newsflash. It’s not funny. In fact, it’s pretty freakin’ unfunny!”

Woah, woah, woah. I didn’t think the conversation was going to go this way. Overrated? Overrated? Overrated? I feel like Derek Zoolander screaming, “One look?! One look?! One look?!” “Rick Nash” and “overrated” should never be used in the same sentence. This falls in line with my unnecessary Dennis Seidenberg bashing last week

As a 19-year old, Nash led the NHL in goals with 41 goals for Columbus. That team finished the year with 62 points, which was good enough for 27th place in the league and 29 points out of the eighth seed in the West. Their top assist man was David Vyborny. Da-vid Vy-born-y. He had 31 assists! 31!

As a 24-year old, Nash scored 40 goals again for a Columbus team that finished seventh in the West and was swept in the first round in their only playoff series ever, though Nash had three points in that series.

The man has scored at least 30 goals in seven of his nine NHL seasons and one of the two years he didn’t was when he was an 18-year-old rookie (he scored 17). Sure, you could make the case that he always has more goals than assists (290-259 career), but who was he supposed to pass to all those years in Columbus? Kristian Huselius? R.J. Umberger? A washed-up Sergei Fedorov? The answer is no one. So he didn’t pass. He just dangled through entire teams by himself and produced goals like this.

I think he did a fine job trying to pad his stats in Columbus, but he couldn’t because there was literally no help on the team … at all … for nine years! Nine years! It was a one-man show and he did the best he could, which was an average of 32 goals a year on the worst team in the league for the last decade. I think he will do a much better job putting up even better and more even and balanced numbers with other stars surrounding him and guys who can actually feed him the puck and do some of the work for him. He will make what is usually an embarrassing power play dangerous and will be the difference maker for this team in the postseason (if they can win a game first).

There’s a reason I was willing to give up everything for him a year ago and why I believe he would have been the difference between playing the Kings for the Cup and losing to the Devils in six games. There’s a reason he was part of the first line for Team Canada in the 2010 Olympics and on their first power play unit. There’s a reason why his cap hit is $7.8 million. And there’s a reason why I’m not worried about it. Rick Nash is the real deal.

Miccoli: I look forward to your demeanor six months from now if the New York Rangers aren’t crowned Stanley Cup Champions. Don’t get me wrong, the Rangers are a good team, a really good team, but that’s exactly it: they’re a team. Rick Nash can produce as much as possible but if they’re not getting contributions from other stars like Gaborik and Richards, production from their depth players and secondary scorers and a strong effort on the blue line, the season could take a turn.

And what about Lundqvist? Seven goals in two games seems like a billion for a guy known for being stingy in net. (Hey, that’s almost four times as many goals that Rask has allowed!) For a goalie that has carried a team on his back for years, wouldn’t it be ironic for him to suddenly falter?

Now don’t get me wrong, I still think King Henrik is still one of the best netminders in the world, even if he makes glove saves after the puck has crossed the goal line. He made some tremendous saves in Boston, allowing only three goals on 34 shots, which seems like a lot for a team synonymous with throwing their bodies in front of pucks as if they were crash test dummies. Can’t say I’d do the same if I was out there, so there’s that, but the Rangers shot blocking was one of the main reasons why they were so successful last year.

Now the power play…yeah, I feel your pain. At least you don’t have to endure the “Bruins are 0-for-(insert number of past Bruin here) on the power play” tweets like I have to. Easily the worst trend to come out of the Bruins’ Cup run … and there were some doozies.

Keefe: Henrik Lundqvist entered the Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera and Eli Manning level of respect from me in that I won’t say something bad about him … ever. (However, there are some “Ladies and gentlemen, Eli Manning” tweets floating around there from the final weeks of this season.) The only difference is that Lundqvist hasn’t won a championship. Actually, there’s another difference: Lundqvist has never really had much help in seven years. That’s why this year is supposed to be different.

Last year I pleaded with anyone who would listen about why the Rangers had to trade Rick Nash. My reasoning was simple: You can’t keep wasting years of Henrik Lundqvist’s prime. The Rangers didn’t add a scorer in Nash and they couldn’t score consistently in the playoffs and they lost in the Eastern Conference Finals. I don’t know for sure that Nash would have had produced a Rangers-Kings series, but I like to believe that I know for sure that he would. Instead the Rangers relied on lucky bounces and garbage goals, which they relied on for a lot of their regular season wins that got them the No. 1 seed, but when those bounces stopped finding them, they lost. They needed seven games to knock off the No. 8 Senators and the No. 7 Capitals and then they couldn’t solve a 40-year-old Martin Brodeur, who looked 80 at times, and an offense that had very similar problems. But it probably didn’t matter because I don’t think any team was beating the Kings last spring and summer. Though I’d like to think a team with Henrik Lundqvist in net would have had a better chance.

Up until last year, the Rangers’ game plan was score the first goal and then hope for a shutout. It’s why their postseasons only lasted one round for a few years. Last year things looked like they would start to be different and there was some secondary scoring added around Marian Gaborik. Now the team has Gaborik and Nash and Brad Richards and Ryan Callahan and Carl Hagelin and Chris Kreider and Derek Stepan. There’s no reason the 2010-11 game plan of playing for one goal and if you’re really, really lucky, two goals should still be the plan.

Like I said, I won’t fault Lundqvist for any of the team’s problems through two games (I have to remind myself it’s only been two games) and even though seven goals in two games is a problem, the Rangers have allowed 73 shots in 60 minutes. I’m not sure that’s a recipe for success and I’m not sure going 1-for-9 on the power play is one either.

As for the shot blocking, that’s what everyone always wants to talk about with the Rangers. And while it shows a blue-collar mentality and a lunch pail and hard hat image for New York City, it can do just as much bad for the team as it can good. It seems like most goals Lundqvist allowed last year were a product of blocked shots off Rangers that screened him or deflected. That hasn’t necessarily been the case this year, but letting the Penguins play “Rebound” in front of him isn’t exactly a good idea.

On Saturday, the Rangers lost to a better “team.” I’m not sure the Bruins will be the better team after Game 48 (I just wanted to write that to see how weird it sounded and read coming off the fingers onto the screen), but right now the Bruins are the better “team” with less new faces and more chemistry than the Rangers. The same goes for the Penguins. I’m not sure 96 hours is enough time for the Rangers to get it together since seeing the Bruins, but I would like to think they took the time on Monday and Tuesday to try some line combinations that will last more than one shift.

But I said it: The Bruins are a better team … right now. And that’s without crazy man Tim Thomas in net.

Miccoli: The Bruins are one of a few teams that could actually benefit from a 48-game season. Aside from the obvious Tim Thomas departure (which still bugs me, but I’ll get to that), only Benoit Pouliot, Joe Corvo, Greg Zanon and Brian Rolston have left the team. Five years from now, this will be more forgettable than that time the Bruins had Yan Stastny, Petr Tenkrat and Stanislav Chistov on the roster. The additions to the lineup Chris Bourque, Dougie Hamilton and even a healthy Nathan Horton, give the Bruins an instant upgrade from when we saw them last, leaving the ice after Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Quarterfinals. I can preach about the importance of chemistry (which the Bruins have), the benefits of a positive locker room (this, too) and even the crucial depth needed to win the Stanley Cup (hey, the Bruins have this too!), but I think that’s best saved for their play on the ice.

The Bruins have the opportunity to be a Stanley Cup contender for a long time. They have incredible depth playing in Boston right now and a boatload of prospects who should be NHL-ready as soon as next season. Factor in the development of players like Tyler Seguin, Brad Marchand and Tuukka Rask and you have a wide-open championship window for Boston. That’s exciting, since no other Boston sports team is in a situation quite like the Bruins. Everyone hates the Red Sox, the Celtics are old and too many people are whining about the Patriots. Never in a million years did I think that the Bruins would be the toast of the town. But now they are and they know it, too.

Bruins coach Claude Julien said on Monday that he was aware of the team’s obligation to the city. Andrew Ference is tweeting about how much he loves the city and how the team loves playing in front of the fans every night. Patrice Bergeron even talked about how much of an honor it was to wear the Bruins jersey and play at the TD Garden every night. Call it clichéd, but this team genuinely gets how important hockey is to the city. David Krejci said that the whole team is having a lot of fun out there and it sure looks it, since they’re firing on all cylinders. All of the vibes surrounding this team right now are overwhelmingly positive.

Which brings me to Tim Thomas. I don’t know why Thomas decided to pack up his bags and move to Colorado. I don’t know why Thomas thinks he’s an automatic lock for the U.S. Olympic team in 2014 after, you know, just not playing for a year. I don’t know why Thomas’ sudden affinity for social media fascinates everyone, either (I’m curious if everyone was like this when their parents joined Facebook? I know I was.). What I do know is that without Tim Thomas, the Boston Bruins do not win the Stanley Cup and are not in the same position that they’re in today. Sure, Thomas was a distraction last season with all of the off-the-ice crap and his statistics dipped too. To me, the two share zero correlation. Thomas’ was never going to replicate his 2010-11 season again and while under every single spotlight in Boston, every move he made was criticized. It got sickening fast and I think Thomas started to play it up a little because really, there was nothing else for him to do.

I remember Tim Thomas as being the guy who won a Stanley Cup for the Boston. That’s how I choose to think about it. With that, I’m more than ready for the Tuukka Rask era to begin.

Keefe: Ah, Petr Tenkrat. There’s a name I forgot about for a reason and never expected to hear again. There’s a blast from the past and a name I forgot and didn’t expect to hear ever again. As for Tim Thomas, I hope my friend in Boston, who got a tattoo on his arm of Thomas holding the Cup is thinking about Thomas the same way as you. Otherwise he has a guy with a well-known Facebook page in a Bruins jersey holding the Cup tattooed on his body for life.

I’m happy to see your dream come true of the Bruins being the focal point of Boston once again like it’s the 70s or late 80s or early 90s there. I only wish this had been the case when I was still living in Boston, so there would have been excitement in the city for hockey. Or maybe it would have been nice if Gary Bettman didn’t cancel the season in the year that we lived together just blocks from the then-FleetCenter. Gary Bettman! What a guy!

All of this positive talk about the Bruins makes me wish I could talk the same way about the Rangers. I can feel the excitement and jubilation from you through the computer screen. Instead the Rangers are winless with the Bruins coming to the Garden and looking at Philadelphia twice, Toronto and Pittsburgh for the rest of January. Things need to turn around and they need to turn around starting against your team.

Miccoli: All is not lost … at least not yet. It’s still early and luckily for you, they only hand out the Stanley Cup after the first few games of the season in Toronto. As far as the Bruins and Rangers go, it’s sad to see their season series concluding in just two weeks when the Blueshirts visit the Garden on Feb. 12. But the end for these two teams? Not a chance. I think this is finally the year that the Rangers and Bruins meet in the Eastern Conference playoffs. And if that happens, I can’t possibly think of a better way to expedite years off of my life.

Here’s my quick confession: the New York Rangers are the team to beat in the East, even if they look like a PeeWee youth hockey team playing in their first game after tryouts right now. They just have all of the pieces and once they click, they’ll be a well-oiled machine capable of crushing teams that stand in their way. I don’t think it will be the Pittsburgh Penguins in the hunt alongside the Rangers, but rather the Boston Bruins. Both teams just stand out for me. While I’m sure this would make for an incredible playoff series, I won’t look forward to the Boston vs. New York narrative that both markets will eat up at every possible opportunity, but at least that will mask the four-hour Red Sox-Yankees series that everyone will forget about. But the hockey games, oh, the games will be fun. Late spring, playoff hockey between two of the best teams in the East. Doesn’t get much better, does it? Ahh, hockey!

I guess the Rangers have to win a game first, though, which is good news considering they have the Flyers Thursday night. Ilya Bryzgalov is always good for a pick-me-up.

Tag: Tuukka Rask

Preparation for Rangers-Bruins Postseason Battle

Dreaming of a Rangers-Bruins Postseason Series

Rangers Better Be Ready for Rematch with Bruins