I came into the Calgary game very excited, because Torts set up to use literally exactly the lines I wanted him to. Prospal-Dubinsky-Gaborik; Avery-Drury-Callahan; Higgins-Anisimov-Kotalik; Lisin-Boyle-Byers; same D-pairs as always, with Valiquette in goal for a second game in a row (giving Lundqvist 9 days rest between games to heal his whatever-is-mildly-wrong-with-him). Everything went crazy, though, and now everything sucks.
For the first 30 seconds of the game, the first line was on, and that was fine. Then, the second line came on, and that was also fine for about 19 seconds. Then, with the puck 10 feet away and moving in the opposite direction, Curtis Glencross moved in on an unaware Chris Drury who had his head down and elbowed him in the head. Drury, needless to say, did not return to the game. Current reports are that he will be out for an unknown period of time, but the good news is that he flew home with the team, which means they weren't afraid of a flight screwing with his concussion (?).
This is what I'm talking about, people. This is why I draw a distinction between "not well-liked" and "dirty." This piece at Bleacher Report probably isn't, like, worth reading, but it summarizes our issue pretty nicely: there are hits that are part of hockey, and there are hits that aren't. It's very hard for a non-hockey fan to distinguish these, but we hockey fans know the difference. There are hard hits (some of which do sadly cause injury), and there are dirty hits. Hits away from the play, hits when the guy you're hitting isn't looking, or his body is relaxed. These are not hits that try to take someone out of the play, they are hits that try to take someone out of the game.
As a Ranger fan, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I watched my team battle back hard, play the majority of the game without its top two centers (Dubinsky is out 3-6 weeks with a broken hand from a blocked shot), killed of some really questionable penalties, and outplayed the Flames for the large majority of the 3-1 loss anyway. Effort-wise, after winning those games we deserved to lose in the middle of October, there's something nice about losing a game we deserved to win.
On the other hand, if we're gonna lose 3-1 anyway, where is the retaliation? Yes, yes, "the best retaliation is winning." But we didn't do that. The tone of the game was set early, even earlier than this hit 0:49 in, when some Flame came past the red line and bumped Dubinsky during pre-game warmups. If Glencross was going to be officially so very, very unpenalized for the hit, why wasn't he punished by someone's fists? We need to show some kind of passion, to show that this kind of bullshit, even if it's mysteriously okay with the league, is not going to be okay with us. My father sent me an e-mail the next morning that said exactly what I said to my girlfriend at the time: this is why we have guys like Donald Brashear. Not to go out and take cheap shots like these at guys like Blair Betts, but to make people pay in a physical way for hits like Glencross's. And, ideally, to have the decency to do it like a man, with your victim facing you.
Asked about why there was no retaliation, Avery responded, "You can't. You can't. If the game had become lopsided, there's no question something would have been done. It sucks. It sucks, that's what happens with the instigator rule. It protects guys who are cowards." I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, you need to flatten a guy who does this to your captain. On the other hand, we all know what the story would have been post-game if Avery had gone after Glencross: Avery would have gotten a game misconduct for starting trouble, the Rangers' loss would have been pinned, at least partially, on those penalties, and the league would have investigated both Avery and Glencross for possible future suspensions. Instead, the Rangers buckled down and played a fantastic hockey game, one that certainly could have been a win if not for the fantastic play of Flames goalie Mikka Kiprusoff.
Which brings me to the counterpoint to "as a Ranger fan," which is how I feel as a generic hockey fan. If we ignore what we think the Rangers should or should not have done differently, Avery's comments are pretty telling here. Glencross was able to get away with a dirty hit like this and then skate around for the rest of the game. Avery was afraid to retaliate because that's what the league cracks down on. And it's true: though Glencross received a 3-game suspension (meh!), Avery could easily have been given 17 minutes for going after him "unprovoked." Meanwhile, four officials managed to give zero minutes to the initial hit.
It speaks to a lack of understanding of the game of hockey. You know that difference between hits I was talking about, the one we hockey fans understand? It seems the school of NHL officiating does not understand it. Time and time again, we see that the rules are formulated to really crack down on the stuff that "looks" (to non-hockey fans) like the dangerous stuff. After all, Glencross just hit someone on the ice with his body - hockey players do that all the time, right? That can't possibly be as dangerous as, say, fighting! The question is: are the aptly-pronounced Colin Campbell and his striped squad trying to keep hockey safer and more true-to-form, or are they trying to make it look safer and "more exciting"?
Anyway, we move forward as best we can. As Larry Brooks put it in an informative piece today, "the thinnest position on the roster and in the organization has taken on an anorexic look." Reports on Drury's injury are largely inconclusive, with Steve Zipay going as far as to say he's not even ruled out playing on Thursday (wow). That said, it seems unlikely he'll play then, as you really don't wanna mess with a concussion. Dubinsky's hand, as I said above, will take 3-6 weeks to heal. (Meanwhile, Lundqvist, Lisin, and Gaborik were all resting instead of skating at today's practice - but, hey, Brashear skated.)
That leaves us with Artem Anisimov, as centers go. As of yet, no one has been called up from Hartford, but I can't imagine that lasting. Presumably, Prospal will be moved back to center, and Anisimov will center the second line. Brooks posits that he might be too young, but I still believe that we'll be bringing Grachev up to fill the third line center position and leaving Boyle to center the fourth. Brooks adequately explains that we can't hire any more centers because we can't afford them, but brings one interesting rule to light: we could place Dubi on Long Term Injured Reserve (this requires a minimum of 10 missed games and 24 missed days, both of which should be no problem here), which would free up his salary (which I believe to be $1.7 million, and Brooks claims frees up only $1.2 million, and I don't know why) to be spent against the cap, but, of course, we'd have to stop spending that money as soon as Dubi returns, so, the short story is: we can't hire any more centers because we can't afford them.
The previous sentence was 114 words long.
Here's a fun exercise I just did:
Higgins - Prospal - Gaborik
Avery - Anisimov - Callahan
Lisin - Grachev - Kotalik
Byers - Boyle - Brashear
...guh...the good news is we don't play again until Thursday, and we only have 4 games from now through November 22. So, now's as good a time as any for all those teams beneath us in the standings to catch up to us. We'll take the time to heal?
No comments:
Post a Comment