Like so many T-shirts in Times Square, I heart New York. I heart New York for a whole lot of reasons, and a lot of them are dumb, but one of the not-dumb ones is that the city is the omnipresent cultural trendsetter. Everything comes from New York. Clothes, theatre, music, food - whatever's trendy in the US started being trendy in New York. So it's always satisfying and intriguing to see the rare cultural phenomenon which spreads over the continent before it hits the city. Well, modern anthropologists such as myself are in luck, as a trend that has been sweeping NHL fan bases for years has finally touched down in Manhattan: the Goalie Controversy.
Though arguments over which of your team's netminders is better have been a part of hockey for a long time, it seems like recently you can't go a few months without some team being in some crisis between the pipes, real or imagined. Of course, the best-known Goalie Controversy in recent memory was resolved over the summer, when Canucks fans were either relieved or appalled to learn that one of their two very good goalies, Cory Schneider, had been traded to a Devils team desperate for a goalie under 40 (or at least one who probably hasn't fucked his wife's sister), leaving room for their other very good goalie, Roberto Luongo. But there's been no shortage of other goalie arguments around the league over the last few years: Fleury vs Vokoun, Bernier vs Reimer, Halak vs Price, Halak vs Elliott, every man for himself in Philly... they run the gamut from "our team has no good goaltending prospects" to "our team has two good goalies and we, the fans, have decided to irrationally hate one of them," and they're always a hot topic of discussion, where "discussion" means hockey fans pretending to be psychologists and ignoring statisticians.
The recipe for a Goalie Controversy is not so different from that of most other invented sports narratives: take a narrow enough window of time that the sample within it fits some very specific trend, add an emotionally charged description of that trend, and then claim it applies to the subject at large. Season with a dash of the phrase "head case," and you've got yourself a Goalie Controversy! For example, in Pittsburgh, Marc-Andre Fleury (career save percentage .910, playoff save percentage .903) is a head case, but knows what it takes to win the big games, while Tomas Vokoun (career .917, playoff .928) couldn't win when it counts.
And that recipe has finally landed on Broadway. This season, the Rangers finally did away with their charming, gorgeous-eyed, terrible backup in Martin Biron, leaving room for young stud Cam Talbot to finally get some NHL starts. The kid has played very, very well, and the new coach isn't afraid to actually use his backup, which has led some fans to question the heartiness of the Kingdom. This came to something of a head this morning, when it became clear that Talbot would start for the second game in a row. So this is where I tell you why you're worried, why it's fine, and what this might actually mean.
Why you're worried
First of all, Talbot is playing a lot more than we're used to during the reign of the King. In his first 5 full seasons, Lundqvist never played fewer than 68 regular season games (playing 70 twice, 72 once, and 73 once), and after a brief reprieve in 2011-12, in which he played only 62, he returned in the lockout-shortened season to play 43 of 48 (on pace for another 73). This season, including tonight, he'll have started only 19 of 28, on pace for a career-low (in full seasons) 56 games. That's low for any starter, but it's extremely low for Lundqvist.
And the games he's played haven't gone too well. Lundqvist is posting an 8-11 record on the season, compared to Talbot's 6-1. Looking at those records, it'd be easy for you to conclude that Talbot is playing better hockey right now. And you wouldn't necessarily be wrong: the King has allowed 46 goals on 553 shots (.917), while Talbot has allowed only 11 on 198 (.944). Lundqvist isn't at the top of his game right now, and Talbot certainly appears to be. Searching for extra-hockey explanations, it's easy to find some: the Queen (which is what I assume Mrs. Lundqvist is called) recently gave birth to the Prince (which is what I assume their child is called), so maybe he's distracted. It's a contract year, and the Rangers' future with Lundqvist is not yet clear. Maybe he needs to play 70+ games a season to feel good enough about himself to play his best. Maybe the new coaching staff doesn't fit with him. And so on.
Why it's fine
That's all bullshit. We don't have to get into why win-loss record is a terrible way to judge a player, since it's something a whole team does. When the disparity is that strong (Talbot is 6-1!), it's easy to start feeling like it's one guy's fault, but that's nuts. Also, Talbot's opponents have been the Canucks, the Predators, the Canadiens, the Blue Jackets, the Islanders, the Red Wings, and the Flyers - of those, only Detroit and Montreal are playoff teams right now. Yes, Talbot's .944 is very impressive, but he's only faced about 36% of the shots Lundqvist has, and from generally subpar teams. Come talk to me when that save percentage stays consistent over another dozen games against teams like the Bruins, Penguins, Ducks, Sharks, and Blues. Until then, there is no question who the starter on this team is.
And here's the thing, you guys: it's a good thing when you have a reliable backup so your starter doesn't have to play so much. Remember that reprieve season I told you about, 2011-12, when Lundqvist only played 62 regular season games? It was the best season of his career. He posted a .930 save percentage, averaged fewer than 2 goals allowed per game, and won the Vezina. I'm not saying more rest is the only ingredient for that kind of success, but it sure as hell isn't going to hurt.
What this might actually mean
There's no doubt that the King remains one of the best goalies in the league. But his numbers, while still good enough that basically any NHL team would want him (.917 is nothing to be embarrassed about), are not quite as superhuman as we're used to. To be sure, he's not playing his best hockey right now. And that is okay! It is December! He is likelier to remain very, very good for the next few seasons than he is to settle into mediocrity.
But. This offseason, his contract will expire, as will those of some other key Rangers. Lundqvist would be the hottest free agent goalie in a very long time, and he will likely command a 7- or 8-year deal at around $10 million per year. Conventional wisdom to date has been that, as one of the few elite goalies in the NHL, he'd be worth that (even if 5 years from now, depending on the cap, it could start to look ugly), and that the Rangers should do their best to get it settled before he hits the open market. But, if the King is starting to look only very, very good, then that becomes a more interesting question. The going rate for a very good goalie is a sight less than $80 million. Even if he has been the face of the franchise for almost a decade, even if he's often been the only reason the team has been respectable, let alone competitive - would Lundqvist really be worth $10 million a year for 8 years, in an offseason in which we have to sign Ryan Callahan and Dan Girardi, if he's only very, very good?
It's way too early in the season to be asking that question, of course, and so the question isn't really the point. The point is that even if you are concerned about the King's "meager" .917 so far this season, you still shouldn't be asking whether or not he's about to be replaced by Cam Talbot; you should be asking whom we're signing next summer.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
Unfounded Trade Plan: Go!
Last night, after the Rangers' almost-but-not-quite-enough loss to yet another superior team from the superior conference, I went out dumpster-diving, and I found an old, beat-up rumor mill. I took it home, cleaned it up, and guess what: it's still got juice! So, I'm trying the old thing out today. Let's see if it still works!
Of course, imaginary fan-created trade proposals are dumb, and this one will be no different. Generally they're dumb because, for some reason, no fan of any sports team is comfortable with the idea that you have to give up good assets to get good assets. Sure, once in a while, you trade Scott Gomez and two assholes for 4 pieces including Ryan McDonagh and the guy you can trade for Brandon Prust. But usually, your plans to trade your team's 4th line left wing, 7th defenseman, and 20-year-old AHL goalie for Sidney Crosby and Marc-Andre Fleury because "the Penguins have goalie troubles" probably aren't going to pan out.
Now, with that said, here is my brilliant proposal to trade our 4th line left wing and 7th defenseman.
No, wait, where are you going? Hear me out. For the first time in a while, the Rangers have some possibly vestigial pieces that might actually have some value.
When Rick Nash returns (which, by the way, really should not be on Tuesday to face the Big Bad Bruins in his first game back, please, regardless of how few goals we scored this weekend), he'll likely end up replacing Zuccarello on the Stepan line, sending Zucc down to replace either Miller or Pouliot at Moore's side (at least, that's what I'd do). Miller and Pouliot are playing similar hockey right now, showing occasional flashes of offensive brilliance while spending the majority of their time oscillating between mediocrity and defensive liability. So all things being equal, I'd be just as happy to sit one as the other.
But many things are not equal. Pouliot is a 27-year-old who has been on 5 NHL teams and 2 AHL teams since entering the league in 2006, his stint with the Rangers being his fourth "fresh start" in as many calendar years. Miller is a 20-year-old Rangers first-rounder fewer than 50 games into his career, fresh off of leading Team USA in both assists and points on its way to Gold in the World Juniors less than a year ago. Pouliot's on a 1-year, $1.3 million contract; Miller's is 2 years at less than $900,000 apiece, after which he remains a restricted free agent. It is far easier to invest a roster spot and its requisite patience for defensive lapses in Miller than in Pouliot. And with Powe, Pyatt, and Mashinter all capable of rotating in reliably in case of injury, Pouliot isn't the kind of guy worth carrying around to be a regular scratch. Like a backup goalie, you want your 13th forwards to be low-risk, even if they're relatively low-reward.
Meanwhile, back at the blue line, an interesting thing occurred. Michael Del Zotto, who is whatever the opposite of a fan favorite is, and who saw quite a bit of questionable (and indeed questioned) ice time under Coach Tortorella, was a healthy scratch on Saturday night, making way for Justin Falk, who Wikipedia informs me shares my birthday. Falk, nothing special, nonetheless played solidly enough to remain in the lineup the following night. I'm not saying we've seen the last of Del Zotto in Broadway Blue, but it's clear that, with Staal and Stralman as Vigneault's "offensive pair" (and I can't believe I'm saying this, but Stralman's actually been pretty good lately), it's clear that the Rangers can get by just fine without DZ to round out the bottom pair. Even if he should be on the ice instead of Falk, if your top 5 D-men are McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, Stralman, and Moore, do you really need to pay him $2.55 million to do it? Like Pouliot, Del Zotto is the kind of player you don't keep around if you're not giving him good minutes - better to pay less for someone with lower highs and higher lows.
Understand: Del Zotto and Pouliot are not without their up sides, and on a team with a slightly different makeup, it would likely be worth keeping them around. But that's really the point: you have to give up value to get value in a trade, and these are two guys that might not be doing much for the Rangers, but who might have meaningful value for some other team. Not for a team with its shit together, mind you - which basically rules out everyone in the West that isn't from Tennessee or Alberta - but for a team that, for whatever reason, is willing to take some risks with some "enigmatic" pieces with high potential, and who might give up a single consistent resource in return. That's not so crazy, is it?
Right, so. Here's my proposal: offer Del Zotto and Pouliot to Philadelphia for Wayne Simmonds.
Eh? If they say no, maybe let them upgrade a lower pick one round as well, or possibly even throw one in? Am I crazy to think a team like Philly would go for a move like this? Am I crazy to think it would benefit the Rangers, not insignificantly? It sounds plausible to me. So, let's throw it in the mill and see what comes out.
Of course, imaginary fan-created trade proposals are dumb, and this one will be no different. Generally they're dumb because, for some reason, no fan of any sports team is comfortable with the idea that you have to give up good assets to get good assets. Sure, once in a while, you trade Scott Gomez and two assholes for 4 pieces including Ryan McDonagh and the guy you can trade for Brandon Prust. But usually, your plans to trade your team's 4th line left wing, 7th defenseman, and 20-year-old AHL goalie for Sidney Crosby and Marc-Andre Fleury because "the Penguins have goalie troubles" probably aren't going to pan out.
Now, with that said, here is my brilliant proposal to trade our 4th line left wing and 7th defenseman.
No, wait, where are you going? Hear me out. For the first time in a while, the Rangers have some possibly vestigial pieces that might actually have some value.
When Rick Nash returns (which, by the way, really should not be on Tuesday to face the Big Bad Bruins in his first game back, please, regardless of how few goals we scored this weekend), he'll likely end up replacing Zuccarello on the Stepan line, sending Zucc down to replace either Miller or Pouliot at Moore's side (at least, that's what I'd do). Miller and Pouliot are playing similar hockey right now, showing occasional flashes of offensive brilliance while spending the majority of their time oscillating between mediocrity and defensive liability. So all things being equal, I'd be just as happy to sit one as the other.
But many things are not equal. Pouliot is a 27-year-old who has been on 5 NHL teams and 2 AHL teams since entering the league in 2006, his stint with the Rangers being his fourth "fresh start" in as many calendar years. Miller is a 20-year-old Rangers first-rounder fewer than 50 games into his career, fresh off of leading Team USA in both assists and points on its way to Gold in the World Juniors less than a year ago. Pouliot's on a 1-year, $1.3 million contract; Miller's is 2 years at less than $900,000 apiece, after which he remains a restricted free agent. It is far easier to invest a roster spot and its requisite patience for defensive lapses in Miller than in Pouliot. And with Powe, Pyatt, and Mashinter all capable of rotating in reliably in case of injury, Pouliot isn't the kind of guy worth carrying around to be a regular scratch. Like a backup goalie, you want your 13th forwards to be low-risk, even if they're relatively low-reward.
Meanwhile, back at the blue line, an interesting thing occurred. Michael Del Zotto, who is whatever the opposite of a fan favorite is, and who saw quite a bit of questionable (and indeed questioned) ice time under Coach Tortorella, was a healthy scratch on Saturday night, making way for Justin Falk, who Wikipedia informs me shares my birthday. Falk, nothing special, nonetheless played solidly enough to remain in the lineup the following night. I'm not saying we've seen the last of Del Zotto in Broadway Blue, but it's clear that, with Staal and Stralman as Vigneault's "offensive pair" (and I can't believe I'm saying this, but Stralman's actually been pretty good lately), it's clear that the Rangers can get by just fine without DZ to round out the bottom pair. Even if he should be on the ice instead of Falk, if your top 5 D-men are McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, Stralman, and Moore, do you really need to pay him $2.55 million to do it? Like Pouliot, Del Zotto is the kind of player you don't keep around if you're not giving him good minutes - better to pay less for someone with lower highs and higher lows.
Understand: Del Zotto and Pouliot are not without their up sides, and on a team with a slightly different makeup, it would likely be worth keeping them around. But that's really the point: you have to give up value to get value in a trade, and these are two guys that might not be doing much for the Rangers, but who might have meaningful value for some other team. Not for a team with its shit together, mind you - which basically rules out everyone in the West that isn't from Tennessee or Alberta - but for a team that, for whatever reason, is willing to take some risks with some "enigmatic" pieces with high potential, and who might give up a single consistent resource in return. That's not so crazy, is it?
Right, so. Here's my proposal: offer Del Zotto and Pouliot to Philadelphia for Wayne Simmonds.
Eh? If they say no, maybe let them upgrade a lower pick one round as well, or possibly even throw one in? Am I crazy to think a team like Philly would go for a move like this? Am I crazy to think it would benefit the Rangers, not insignificantly? It sounds plausible to me. So, let's throw it in the mill and see what comes out.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Who Should Eat A Dick?
Tonight, there is a lot of anger going around here at Play Petr Prucha headquarters. Even the pint of Ben & Jerry's in front of me only makes me feel marginally better. So, it's time to attempt Plan B: rant impotently at the cold and unresponsive ear of the Internet. Some nights, some people are such butt scarves that, rather than whatever it is they do, they should probably just fuck off and eat a dick. Tonight, we look at those people in detail, in a new segment I like to call Who Should Eat A Dick?
First of all, Jim Dolan should eat a dick, for continuing to price actual hockey fans out of actual hockey games. I get that everything in New York is expensive, and I get that, as it's the city where all the culture and business come from, there are going to be a lot of attendees at MSG to Be At An Event, rather than to watch a game. But with lower bowl seating starting at $150 and going as high as $1300 per ticket, and many games selling out before individual tickets even go on sale (resale easily doubling a ticket's face value at the minimum), it's hard to feel like the crowd at the home opener was really as full of Ranger fans as it could have been. In years to come, will the Garden still feel like the Garden, or will the rowdier place to watch the game be the Flying Puck? If it's the latter, Dolan's the primary conspirator, and he should eat a dick.
On that note, Adam Richman should eat a dick. I had no idea who this guy was before tonight, but apparently he hosts some Food Network bullshit. Whatever: dude walked down the blue carpet for an interview pregame, as if he belonged there as much as Stemkowski, Matteau, or Greschner, talking a big game about how he used to work with Dave Maloney, and how tonight was "more than just a game" for him, a "part of [his] history." In the same breath, he got the Garden's nickname wrong (calling it "The World's Greatest Arena"), and said he couldn't wait to get inside and see the Broadway Blues. (Out of the mouths of babes, eh?) The whole thing stunk of "Dad trying to use modern slang to seem cool to teenage daughter, but obviously getting it wrong." Next time, if you wanna blend in with the fans, ditch the peacoat for a blueshirt, and try keeping your mouth shut. Until then, eat a dick.
Now, as for the player intros -- Oh, wait, I can't comment on that, because I didn't see it, because NBC Sports Network should eat a dick! My MSG feed was blacked out at exactly 7:30, because NBC Sports Network has exclusive rights to broadcast the game here. But, of course, they weren't as interested in showing me the opening night intros as they were in showing me Liam McHugh, Jeremy Roenick, and Keith Jones talking about other hockey games. So, they didn't want to show me the intros, but they also didn't want anyone else to. That's a dick-eating policy.
Of course, the centerpieces of the dick-eating dais have to be Gord Dwyer and Dave Jackson, the disastrous duo of referees who saw the Garden opener as their time to shine on the national stage, rather than the Canadiens' and Rangers'. The game was called terribly, and, as is so often the case with terrible officiating in the small sample size of one game, it heavily favored one team (the other guys, in this case). Most calls were bad, but none were as awful as the interference call on Kreider that cancelled out a Ranger power play in the 3rd. Courtesy of SB Nation, here's the play in convenient gif form:
According to Vigneault in a post-game interview, when he asked for an explanation, he was told that "if a player is skating backwards, the defenseman has to get out of his way, even if he was standing still." For the record, as if this needs to be clarified, the NHL Rulebook, section 56.1 ("Interference") clearly states: "A player is allowed the ice he is standing on
(body position) and is not required to move in order
to let an opponent proceed." In conclusion, these referees are bad at their jobs and subsequently liars, and should definitely eat a dick.
But it doesn't stop there! Granted, the Rangers aren't scoring much these days, and they're giving up plenty. And it's absurd to blame a couple of goal reviews for that. But, in the "insult to injury" category, the NHL Situation Room can eat a dick. Thursday night, in Philadelphia, J.T. Miller had a goal (as called on the ice) disallowed by the Situation Room on the grounds of a "distinct kicking motion." Tonight, Alex Galchenyuk had a goal upheld (as called on the ice). The phrase "eerily similar" has been used, and not inappropriately. Let's go to the video.
Here is Miller, whom multiple camera angles convinced the brain trust in the Situation Room "propelled the puck into the net with a distinct kicking motion":
And here is tonight's goal, on which multiple camera angles convinced the same brain trust that "the puck deflected off Alex Galchenyuk's right skate and into the net in a legal fashion":
No further analysis is necessary here; the Situation Room should eat a dick.
Speaking of the Rangers not scoring much these days, Brad Stuart should eat a dick. His headshot on Rick Nash 3 weeks ago cost himself a justified 3-game suspension, but cost Rick Nash who knows how long? The team remains totally silent about Nash's status, which is a very, very bad sign for its future. Speculation at this stage is dangerous and depressing, but one thing is clear as Lucite: Brad Stuart absolutely ought to eat a dick.
It's not right for me to write this long a frustrated post without getting angry at any Rangers, so let's remember that, as ever, Anton Stralman should eat a dick. Attention, everyone! I don't know why you like this guy so much! He! Is! Shitty! He's a defensive liability with an imaginary offensive upside! Seriously, some nights I feel like I'm watching a totally different guy than everyone else. Special bonus dick-eating sentence for the usually blameless Doc Emrick here, who called a play in which Stralman, from the point, passed the puck backwards to no one, leaving Marc Staal to make a diving play at the blue line to stop the puck from trickling out by inches. Doc described it as a "brilliant shuffleboard move" by Stralman. Dicks for everyone. To eat.
Also, Peter Budaj, who made a perfectly serviceable 27 saves tonight, should eat a dick, for being generally outplayed by a back-to-form King but nonetheless earning the shutout over him. I understand that all Budaj did to deserve this was his job as perfectly as he could have, but still.
Finally and even less fairly, because his production is so impossibly good so far, and I'm so very angry about unrelated things, blog favorite Sidney Crosby should eat a dick. In 12 games, Crosby has netted 8 goals and 12 assists. In 10 games, the whole Rangers team has only scored 15. In other words, Sidney Crosby is contributing to more goals per game than all the Rangers combined. If he stays healthy and on this (likely unsustainable) pace, Crosby will finish the season with 136 points, which would be the most in a single season since both Jagr and Lemieux broke 140 in 1995-'96.
Diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicks.
First of all, Jim Dolan should eat a dick, for continuing to price actual hockey fans out of actual hockey games. I get that everything in New York is expensive, and I get that, as it's the city where all the culture and business come from, there are going to be a lot of attendees at MSG to Be At An Event, rather than to watch a game. But with lower bowl seating starting at $150 and going as high as $1300 per ticket, and many games selling out before individual tickets even go on sale (resale easily doubling a ticket's face value at the minimum), it's hard to feel like the crowd at the home opener was really as full of Ranger fans as it could have been. In years to come, will the Garden still feel like the Garden, or will the rowdier place to watch the game be the Flying Puck? If it's the latter, Dolan's the primary conspirator, and he should eat a dick.
On that note, Adam Richman should eat a dick. I had no idea who this guy was before tonight, but apparently he hosts some Food Network bullshit. Whatever: dude walked down the blue carpet for an interview pregame, as if he belonged there as much as Stemkowski, Matteau, or Greschner, talking a big game about how he used to work with Dave Maloney, and how tonight was "more than just a game" for him, a "part of [his] history." In the same breath, he got the Garden's nickname wrong (calling it "The World's Greatest Arena"), and said he couldn't wait to get inside and see the Broadway Blues. (Out of the mouths of babes, eh?) The whole thing stunk of "Dad trying to use modern slang to seem cool to teenage daughter, but obviously getting it wrong." Next time, if you wanna blend in with the fans, ditch the peacoat for a blueshirt, and try keeping your mouth shut. Until then, eat a dick.
Now, as for the player intros -- Oh, wait, I can't comment on that, because I didn't see it, because NBC Sports Network should eat a dick! My MSG feed was blacked out at exactly 7:30, because NBC Sports Network has exclusive rights to broadcast the game here. But, of course, they weren't as interested in showing me the opening night intros as they were in showing me Liam McHugh, Jeremy Roenick, and Keith Jones talking about other hockey games. So, they didn't want to show me the intros, but they also didn't want anyone else to. That's a dick-eating policy.
Of course, the centerpieces of the dick-eating dais have to be Gord Dwyer and Dave Jackson, the disastrous duo of referees who saw the Garden opener as their time to shine on the national stage, rather than the Canadiens' and Rangers'. The game was called terribly, and, as is so often the case with terrible officiating in the small sample size of one game, it heavily favored one team (the other guys, in this case). Most calls were bad, but none were as awful as the interference call on Kreider that cancelled out a Ranger power play in the 3rd. Courtesy of SB Nation, here's the play in convenient gif form:
According to Vigneault in a post-game interview, when he asked for an explanation, he was told that "if a player is skating backwards, the defenseman has to get out of his way, even if he was standing still." For the record, as if this needs to be clarified, the NHL Rulebook, section 56.1 ("Interference") clearly states: "A player is allowed the ice he is standing on
(body position) and is not required to move in order
to let an opponent proceed." In conclusion, these referees are bad at their jobs and subsequently liars, and should definitely eat a dick.
But it doesn't stop there! Granted, the Rangers aren't scoring much these days, and they're giving up plenty. And it's absurd to blame a couple of goal reviews for that. But, in the "insult to injury" category, the NHL Situation Room can eat a dick. Thursday night, in Philadelphia, J.T. Miller had a goal (as called on the ice) disallowed by the Situation Room on the grounds of a "distinct kicking motion." Tonight, Alex Galchenyuk had a goal upheld (as called on the ice). The phrase "eerily similar" has been used, and not inappropriately. Let's go to the video.
Here is Miller, whom multiple camera angles convinced the brain trust in the Situation Room "propelled the puck into the net with a distinct kicking motion":
And here is tonight's goal, on which multiple camera angles convinced the same brain trust that "the puck deflected off Alex Galchenyuk's right skate and into the net in a legal fashion":
No further analysis is necessary here; the Situation Room should eat a dick.
Speaking of the Rangers not scoring much these days, Brad Stuart should eat a dick. His headshot on Rick Nash 3 weeks ago cost himself a justified 3-game suspension, but cost Rick Nash who knows how long? The team remains totally silent about Nash's status, which is a very, very bad sign for its future. Speculation at this stage is dangerous and depressing, but one thing is clear as Lucite: Brad Stuart absolutely ought to eat a dick.
It's not right for me to write this long a frustrated post without getting angry at any Rangers, so let's remember that, as ever, Anton Stralman should eat a dick. Attention, everyone! I don't know why you like this guy so much! He! Is! Shitty! He's a defensive liability with an imaginary offensive upside! Seriously, some nights I feel like I'm watching a totally different guy than everyone else. Special bonus dick-eating sentence for the usually blameless Doc Emrick here, who called a play in which Stralman, from the point, passed the puck backwards to no one, leaving Marc Staal to make a diving play at the blue line to stop the puck from trickling out by inches. Doc described it as a "brilliant shuffleboard move" by Stralman. Dicks for everyone. To eat.
Also, Peter Budaj, who made a perfectly serviceable 27 saves tonight, should eat a dick, for being generally outplayed by a back-to-form King but nonetheless earning the shutout over him. I understand that all Budaj did to deserve this was his job as perfectly as he could have, but still.
Finally and even less fairly, because his production is so impossibly good so far, and I'm so very angry about unrelated things, blog favorite Sidney Crosby should eat a dick. In 12 games, Crosby has netted 8 goals and 12 assists. In 10 games, the whole Rangers team has only scored 15. In other words, Sidney Crosby is contributing to more goals per game than all the Rangers combined. If he stays healthy and on this (likely unsustainable) pace, Crosby will finish the season with 136 points, which would be the most in a single season since both Jagr and Lemieux broke 140 in 1995-'96.
Diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicks.
Monday, October 14, 2013
The New York Wish Fulfillment Rangers, or Aaron Is Never Happy
So, you have no reason to believe this, but: I had planned to write a post today that, among other things, presented a case against eminently likable but ultimately inadequate backup goaltender Martin Biron. I was going to claim that a string of "bad outings" couldn't keep being seen as one-offs, supporting the argument with Biron's subterranean .899 save percentage dating back through 2010-2011. I was further going to (somewhat tenuously) argue that, as a backup goalie's primary job is to provide (mediocre) consistency, giving the team a chance to win every time he comes in even if he's never above average, the occasional stinker is to be tolerated less in a backup than in a starter. I was going to lament that Hedberg was never given a fair shake at camp, and that, given that Talbot needs to be playing instead of sitting, that left us with no option but Biron on the roster.
I was going to say all those things, and it was probably going to take me longer than that, but then today the Rangers put him, and Arron Asham, on waivers. So, I guess I don't have to convince anyone of anything. But, of course, this raises a pretty obvious question: Who goalie now? Vigneault isn't ruling anyone out, including Talbot and the Moose, but in the meanwhile, Biron will either be claimed on waivers or clear and be sent to Hartford. So, who goalie now? Do we believe that 40-year-old Hedberg, whose last NHL game was 6 months ago (he gave up 4 goals on 21 shots to the Rangers) will be more consistent, if he joins Callahan, Stepan, and Hagelin among the ranks of Rangers who didn't have the luxury of a training camp? Do we think that it's time for Talbot to start becoming familiar with backup life? Who goalie now??
Okay, and look. Fuck Arron Asham. Dude with that guy's history should make way for inexperienced kids, even if they're less talented, 10 times out of 10. I've said in this space many times that the Rangers would be easier to root for without him, and I'm excited about entering that reality. But. Since camp started, the guy has been better than plenty of other Ranger forwards. Hell, he has even won fights (something I couldn't say for him at all last season). If he was worth keeping around before, I can't imagine what has changed now. Am I really supposed to be excited instead about Derek Dorsett - he of the three unprovoked, unnecessary offensive-zone infractions Saturday night, of which two led to goals?
In conclusion, two things that I wanted to happen happened today, and I'm worried/unhappy about both. Thus, I have achieved what I believe to be the very essence of the Garden Faithful, and I am ready to transcend.
The rest of the planned post was to be an exciting numerical foray into just how bad the Rangers have been so far. That's the fun thing about such a small sample size: 5 games into an 82-game season, you can really combine the numbers to tell an atrocious tale. For example:
Look. Here's the thing. The Rangers are not this bad. At least, as you can see, it is statistically unlikely that they are this bad. We know this without even bothering to notice that the team shooting percentage (just as meaningless in a 5-game sample as the rest of these numbers) is as low as 6.67%. The team is bad for every reason, and it's fixing whatever it can. Lundqvist will get better. Biron will not. Callahan and Stepan, and eventually Hagelin, too, will return to regular season form. Everyone is learning a new system, and as they do, they'll stop focusing on it, and their ability to complete basic tape-to-tape passes is likely to return. Do those changes make the team likely to win the Cup, or even the division? No. But they make it better than this.
The point is: you shouldn't worry about any of that. The only thing from the last 5 games that you should worry about is the hit on Rick Nash. Nash is legitimately one of the best forwards in hockey. He is certainly the best on the Rangers. He's now retroactively on IR, out indefinitely, with concussion-y headaches. The Rangers had better take their time with this one, but who knows how long that will be, or if he'll ever come back the same? Best case, Nash returns soon and everything is fine. Worst case, he is, as my father fearfully suggested, "this generation's Eric Lindros" - and then, the Rangers are shitty this season, so Lundqvist signs elsewhere. Then, without Nash or Lundqvist, we can talk about how much this team really sucks. And we will.
I was going to say all those things, and it was probably going to take me longer than that, but then today the Rangers put him, and Arron Asham, on waivers. So, I guess I don't have to convince anyone of anything. But, of course, this raises a pretty obvious question: Who goalie now? Vigneault isn't ruling anyone out, including Talbot and the Moose, but in the meanwhile, Biron will either be claimed on waivers or clear and be sent to Hartford. So, who goalie now? Do we believe that 40-year-old Hedberg, whose last NHL game was 6 months ago (he gave up 4 goals on 21 shots to the Rangers) will be more consistent, if he joins Callahan, Stepan, and Hagelin among the ranks of Rangers who didn't have the luxury of a training camp? Do we think that it's time for Talbot to start becoming familiar with backup life? Who goalie now??
Okay, and look. Fuck Arron Asham. Dude with that guy's history should make way for inexperienced kids, even if they're less talented, 10 times out of 10. I've said in this space many times that the Rangers would be easier to root for without him, and I'm excited about entering that reality. But. Since camp started, the guy has been better than plenty of other Ranger forwards. Hell, he has even won fights (something I couldn't say for him at all last season). If he was worth keeping around before, I can't imagine what has changed now. Am I really supposed to be excited instead about Derek Dorsett - he of the three unprovoked, unnecessary offensive-zone infractions Saturday night, of which two led to goals?
In conclusion, two things that I wanted to happen happened today, and I'm worried/unhappy about both. Thus, I have achieved what I believe to be the very essence of the Garden Faithful, and I am ready to transcend.
The rest of the planned post was to be an exciting numerical foray into just how bad the Rangers have been so far. That's the fun thing about such a small sample size: 5 games into an 82-game season, you can really combine the numbers to tell an atrocious tale. For example:
- The Rangers have amassed a goal differential of -16 in only 5 games. Not only is this obviously the league worst, it puts them on pace to be outscored by their opponents by 262.4 goals by the end of the regular season. This is only 2.6 short of the NHL record, set by the Washington Capitals, who were outscored by 265 in 1974-75.
- The Rangers have given up 25 goals in those 5 games, putting them on pace to give up 410 on the season, 36 shy of the record set by those same Capitals.
- The Rangers have, logically, then, scored only 9 goals so far. This puts them on pace to score 147.6, only 14.6 goals more than the NHL-low 1953-54 Chicago Black Hawks.
- 4 of the Rangers' goals were on the power play (2 on 5-on-3s), and one was that really bizarre shorthanded Jonathan Quick misplay over 100 feet from anyone else. Thus, the Rangers have only scored 4 even-strength goals: 3 by Brad Richards, one by Derek Dorsett.
- Ranger goalies have given up those 25 goals on 179 shots, for a combined save percentage of .860 through almost 300 minutes. .860.
- Marc Staal and Dan Girardi are already each -7. Ryan McDonagh is -5. Yes, plus/minus is dumb, but I don't have "on the ice for an even-strength goal," which is really only a little better anyway, and I don't know if you heard me but Staal, Girardi, and McDonagh are on pace to average under -100 each.
- The Rangers have been outshot in every game, obviously. But also, they have only even outshot their opponents in 4 individual periods (of 15), and 2 of those were the second and third of their shutout loss to the Ducks (can you say "score effects"?). The other two were the second period in LA and the second period in St. Louis.
- The Rangers have taken 135 shots on goal, bringing their shot differential to -44, an average per game of -8.8. The depressing part about that one? That's exactly what it was last season.
Look. Here's the thing. The Rangers are not this bad. At least, as you can see, it is statistically unlikely that they are this bad. We know this without even bothering to notice that the team shooting percentage (just as meaningless in a 5-game sample as the rest of these numbers) is as low as 6.67%. The team is bad for every reason, and it's fixing whatever it can. Lundqvist will get better. Biron will not. Callahan and Stepan, and eventually Hagelin, too, will return to regular season form. Everyone is learning a new system, and as they do, they'll stop focusing on it, and their ability to complete basic tape-to-tape passes is likely to return. Do those changes make the team likely to win the Cup, or even the division? No. But they make it better than this.
The point is: you shouldn't worry about any of that. The only thing from the last 5 games that you should worry about is the hit on Rick Nash. Nash is legitimately one of the best forwards in hockey. He is certainly the best on the Rangers. He's now retroactively on IR, out indefinitely, with concussion-y headaches. The Rangers had better take their time with this one, but who knows how long that will be, or if he'll ever come back the same? Best case, Nash returns soon and everything is fine. Worst case, he is, as my father fearfully suggested, "this generation's Eric Lindros" - and then, the Rangers are shitty this season, so Lundqvist signs elsewhere. Then, without Nash or Lundqvist, we can talk about how much this team really sucks. And we will.
Friday, October 4, 2013
EVERYONE CALM DOWN
Seriously you guys, Code Blue. This team doesn't know anything about each other yet. The coaching staff doesn't know anything about this team yet. You know what's pretty likely? You don't know anything about this team yet, either.
Look, the entire coaching staff (Benoit Allaire notwithstanding) was changed in the offseason (for those of you keeping score, the offseason was one game ago). Not a single forward line even resembles a line we had a few months ago. Brad Richards is a left wing now. Derek Stepan didn't go to any of training camp. Two of our top three scoring wingers from last season are currently out recovering from identical shoulder surgery. When Jesper Fast was born, Mark Messier was already a Ranger. This team hasn't exactly had time to gel, is what I'm saying.
Shouting about how "Vigneault's Power Play" is supposed to look better at this stage is just the bigger-scale version of shouting at the point man to shoot the puck a few seconds into an instance of it. I know you want them to score, but just chill out and let them get set up first! I am not a professional hockeyman, so I cannot be sure about this, but please allow me this supposition: it takes more than zero regular season games to learn a brand new system with a bunch of brand new guys well enough to use it to succeed at the highest professional level.
Breathe. This was supposed to happen. Trading Tortorella for Vigneault was likely a good move. Moving Richards to the wing was likely a good move. The Rangers will likely be a good squad this season. And it will all likely take some time. Meanwhile, even while we're losing, we're already more fun to watch. So, everything is okay, and everything is going to continue to be okay.
Look, the entire coaching staff (Benoit Allaire notwithstanding) was changed in the offseason (for those of you keeping score, the offseason was one game ago). Not a single forward line even resembles a line we had a few months ago. Brad Richards is a left wing now. Derek Stepan didn't go to any of training camp. Two of our top three scoring wingers from last season are currently out recovering from identical shoulder surgery. When Jesper Fast was born, Mark Messier was already a Ranger. This team hasn't exactly had time to gel, is what I'm saying.
Shouting about how "Vigneault's Power Play" is supposed to look better at this stage is just the bigger-scale version of shouting at the point man to shoot the puck a few seconds into an instance of it. I know you want them to score, but just chill out and let them get set up first! I am not a professional hockeyman, so I cannot be sure about this, but please allow me this supposition: it takes more than zero regular season games to learn a brand new system with a bunch of brand new guys well enough to use it to succeed at the highest professional level.
Breathe. This was supposed to happen. Trading Tortorella for Vigneault was likely a good move. Moving Richards to the wing was likely a good move. The Rangers will likely be a good squad this season. And it will all likely take some time. Meanwhile, even while we're losing, we're already more fun to watch. So, everything is okay, and everything is going to continue to be okay.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Opening night looms
So, the roster is set, and mostly what I thought would happen happened, but then sometimes it didn't. The defensive cuts worked out exactly as expected: Allen, who outplayed the others, will get further play time in the AHL and be the most likely first call-up, while Falk beat out Bickel for the #7 spot.
Up front, only 5 cuts were made, not 6, as Hagelin will start the season on Injured Reserve (Callahan, who is recovering somewhat faster from the identical surgery on the same day, will not). I expected 4 of the cuts to be Fast, Hrivik, Lindberg, and Mashinter. 3 out of 4 ain't bad, but in a surprising move, Vigneualt kept Jesper Fast up with the big club. His other two cuts were Kreider and Powe, leaving Asham and Pyatt up to round out the roster.
If you've been paying attention, the starting goalie and defensemen should be obvious at this point (Lundqvist, McDonagh-Girardi, Staal-Del Zotto, Moore-Stralman), but the forward lines are something of a mystery. Some light was shed today when it was reported that Richards has been moved to the wing, skating at practice opposite Nash on a line centered by Stepan. This move makes sense to me: simplifying Richards's game might lead to good things for him offensively, and the Rangers, as my dad put it, "have 14 forwards, of whom 18 are centers," so this is a pretty solid shift. Behind that first line of Nash - Stepan - Richards, Vigneault seems to be keeping Pouliot - Brassard - Zuccarello together as a 2nd line.
Behind them, based on what we've seen at camp, it seems like Boyle will be the #3 center and Moore will be the #4 (with Miller, who is also a natural centerman, shifted to the wing). That leaves 4 wings to be taken up by any of: Asham, Dorsett, Fast, Miller, and Pyatt (given reports that Callahan, though active, will not be dressed on opening night). I don't imagine the Rangers leaving Fast in the lineup just to bench him (even if he outplayed others, wouldn't they rather develop him in Hartford, like Conor Allen?), so it seems most likely they'd try to use him on the third line, most likely along with J.T. Miller, who deserves more than 4th-line minutes. Behind Miller - Boyle - Fast, I would guess that Pyatt is the odd man out, in favor of a fourth line of Dorsett - Moore - Asham.
And so, here's my best opening night guess:
Nash - Stepan - Richards
Pouliot - Brassard - Zuccarello
Miller - Boyle - Fast
Dorsett - Moore - Asham
McDonagh - Girardi
Staal - Del Zotto
Moore - Stralman
Lundqvist
Biron
Healthy Scratches: Pyatt, Falk
Injured: Callahan
What do you think?
Up front, only 5 cuts were made, not 6, as Hagelin will start the season on Injured Reserve (Callahan, who is recovering somewhat faster from the identical surgery on the same day, will not). I expected 4 of the cuts to be Fast, Hrivik, Lindberg, and Mashinter. 3 out of 4 ain't bad, but in a surprising move, Vigneualt kept Jesper Fast up with the big club. His other two cuts were Kreider and Powe, leaving Asham and Pyatt up to round out the roster.
If you've been paying attention, the starting goalie and defensemen should be obvious at this point (Lundqvist, McDonagh-Girardi, Staal-Del Zotto, Moore-Stralman), but the forward lines are something of a mystery. Some light was shed today when it was reported that Richards has been moved to the wing, skating at practice opposite Nash on a line centered by Stepan. This move makes sense to me: simplifying Richards's game might lead to good things for him offensively, and the Rangers, as my dad put it, "have 14 forwards, of whom 18 are centers," so this is a pretty solid shift. Behind that first line of Nash - Stepan - Richards, Vigneault seems to be keeping Pouliot - Brassard - Zuccarello together as a 2nd line.
Behind them, based on what we've seen at camp, it seems like Boyle will be the #3 center and Moore will be the #4 (with Miller, who is also a natural centerman, shifted to the wing). That leaves 4 wings to be taken up by any of: Asham, Dorsett, Fast, Miller, and Pyatt (given reports that Callahan, though active, will not be dressed on opening night). I don't imagine the Rangers leaving Fast in the lineup just to bench him (even if he outplayed others, wouldn't they rather develop him in Hartford, like Conor Allen?), so it seems most likely they'd try to use him on the third line, most likely along with J.T. Miller, who deserves more than 4th-line minutes. Behind Miller - Boyle - Fast, I would guess that Pyatt is the odd man out, in favor of a fourth line of Dorsett - Moore - Asham.
And so, here's my best opening night guess:
Nash - Stepan - Richards
Pouliot - Brassard - Zuccarello
Miller - Boyle - Fast
Dorsett - Moore - Asham
McDonagh - Girardi
Staal - Del Zotto
Moore - Stralman
Lundqvist
Biron
Healthy Scratches: Pyatt, Falk
Injured: Callahan
What do you think?
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Postulation in the space between
So, great preseason, yeah? 1-5, outscored 22-9? Whatever, it's the preseason; let's wait until next week, when we've been outscored 22-9 in the regular season, to be upset.
The Rangers will announce their final training camp cuts tomorrow, in anticipation of the deadline Monday at 3 PM, by which time they must be at or under 23. By all indications (again, based on the airtight reliability of Twitter), it sounds like they'll be cutting down enough to leave Callahan and Hagelin among the active players. Between that and the signing of Stepan (for almost exactly what the Rangers had been offering this whole time, by the way), Vigneault will have to make quite a few more cuts than I anticipated. 20 dress per night, and if Callahan and Hagelin are 2 more under the 23, that leaves room for only 1 more, likely a 7th defenseman. From the current 20 forwards and 9 defensemen, then, it sounds like Vigneault may cut as many as 6 up front and 2 on the blue line tomorrow. So, who?
It seems pretty likely that Boyle, Brassard, Moore, Nash, Pouliot, Richards, Stepan, and Zuccarello make the cut. Given the way Miller's played, including last night's team-wide Frozen Fury Failure, he's got to make the list as well. It's harder to be sure of this, but Dorsett's probably also looked good enough to stick around. That leaves 2 spots open for: Asham, Fast, Hrivik, Kreider, Lindberg, Mashinter, Powe, and Pyatt. Fast, Hrivik, Lindberg, and Mashinter almost certainly get cut, but it's hard to guess at the other two. Regardless, it seems like they're the two that would sit if Callahan and Hagelin came back immediately.
In the back, obviously, Del Zotto, Girardi, McDonagh, Moore, and Staal are starters, and unfortunately, so is Stralman (though he's been outplayed by others). So, the 7th D spot is left to one of Allen, Bickel, and Falk. To me, Allen has clearly outplayed the other two, but he's also the 23-year-old who would benefit from regular play time in Hartford. Personally, I'd give him the 6th spot in Stralman's stead and see what happened, but that's unlikely, and it seems like a waste to have Allen on the NHL squad to sit on the bench every night - much like Cam Talbot, who outplayed Biron in camp, but who was ultimately sent down to the Wolfpack to get regular play. Discounting Allen, Falk should get the #7 spot over Bickel.
That's all I've got. Tomorrow, we'll see why I'm an idiot. Bye!
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
The cuts are in
I was right, except for where I was wrong! First of all, they went ahead and cut Cam Talbot. That's not really surprising: it was always going to happen by next week, no matter how he or Biron played, because he needs the playing time to improve and can't be seated on an NHL bench all season. I just expected him to get a game or half sometime this week first. Whatever. On the blue line, Vigneault assigned exactly the expected four to Hartford: Johnson, Hughes, McIlrath, and Syvret. Again, no surprises.
Up front, though, the cuts were a little bit unexpected. The staff sent Haley, Kantor, and Yogan to the Wolfpack, as I (and many others) thought. They left Brandon Mashinter up with the big club, which I did not see coming (I would have expected Haley to stay up before him), but which you will recall I have no problems with. Because of the face-punching.
The one surprising move was their ninth and final cut: Danny Kristo. Not that I'm ready to make a case that Kristo is NHL-ready: he's a kid who needs more playing time before he's responsible enough to play in the league. It's just weird that he got sent down while others of his ilk (like Hrivik) and below his ilk (Lindberg, about whom I really must be missing something) stayed up. Ultimately, cuts have to be made, and this was probably a smart one, but it's surprising that it came in this round.
So, who's left? 30 players:
Forwards (19)
Aaron Asham, Brian Boyle, Derick Brassard, Ryan Callahan, Derek Dorsett, Jesper Fast, Carl Hagelin, Marek Hrivik, Chris Kreider, Oscar Lindberg, Brandon Mashinter, J.T. Miller, Dominic Moore, Rick Nash, Benoit Pouliot, Darroll Powe, Taylor Pyatt, Brad Richards, Mats Zuccarello
Defensemen (9)
Conor Allen, Stu Bickel, Michael Del Zotto, Justin Falk, Dan Girardi, Ryan McDonagh, John Moore, Marc Staal, Anton Stralman
Goalies (2)
Marty Biron, Henrik Lundqvist
Obviously, the goalies are set. Vigneault has said he intends to carry four defensive pairs on opening night, so that leaves only one cut to be made on the blue line: surely it will be either Allen or Bickel, and the other seven should still be around next Thursday night.
To get down to the maximum 23-man roster, that leaves room for 13 forwards. Of the 19 still on the list right now, Callahan and Hagelin will likely start the season inactive, which leaves 17 people to fill those 13 spots. So, in addition to Allen or Bickel, the Rangers must cut (at minimum) four more forwards before opening night. Obviously, nothing is sure - Boyle, Dorsett, Kreider, Moore, and Pouliot could all be on the bubble as well - but I have to imagine that those 4 cuts would most likely come from among 8 dudes: Asham, Fast, Hrivik, Lindberg, Mashinter, Miller, Powe, and Pyatt.
Next stop: Vancouver. Any storylines anyone can think of for that game?
Up front, though, the cuts were a little bit unexpected. The staff sent Haley, Kantor, and Yogan to the Wolfpack, as I (and many others) thought. They left Brandon Mashinter up with the big club, which I did not see coming (I would have expected Haley to stay up before him), but which you will recall I have no problems with. Because of the face-punching.
The one surprising move was their ninth and final cut: Danny Kristo. Not that I'm ready to make a case that Kristo is NHL-ready: he's a kid who needs more playing time before he's responsible enough to play in the league. It's just weird that he got sent down while others of his ilk (like Hrivik) and below his ilk (Lindberg, about whom I really must be missing something) stayed up. Ultimately, cuts have to be made, and this was probably a smart one, but it's surprising that it came in this round.
So, who's left? 30 players:
Forwards (19)
Aaron Asham, Brian Boyle, Derick Brassard, Ryan Callahan, Derek Dorsett, Jesper Fast, Carl Hagelin, Marek Hrivik, Chris Kreider, Oscar Lindberg, Brandon Mashinter, J.T. Miller, Dominic Moore, Rick Nash, Benoit Pouliot, Darroll Powe, Taylor Pyatt, Brad Richards, Mats Zuccarello
Defensemen (9)
Conor Allen, Stu Bickel, Michael Del Zotto, Justin Falk, Dan Girardi, Ryan McDonagh, John Moore, Marc Staal, Anton Stralman
Goalies (2)
Marty Biron, Henrik Lundqvist
Obviously, the goalies are set. Vigneault has said he intends to carry four defensive pairs on opening night, so that leaves only one cut to be made on the blue line: surely it will be either Allen or Bickel, and the other seven should still be around next Thursday night.
To get down to the maximum 23-man roster, that leaves room for 13 forwards. Of the 19 still on the list right now, Callahan and Hagelin will likely start the season inactive, which leaves 17 people to fill those 13 spots. So, in addition to Allen or Bickel, the Rangers must cut (at minimum) four more forwards before opening night. Obviously, nothing is sure - Boyle, Dorsett, Kreider, Moore, and Pouliot could all be on the bubble as well - but I have to imagine that those 4 cuts would most likely come from among 8 dudes: Asham, Fast, Hrivik, Lindberg, Mashinter, Miller, Powe, and Pyatt.
Next stop: Vancouver. Any storylines anyone can think of for that game?
Disappointment in Cal Gary and Oil Country
Live professional games are blacked out when you order MSG from out of town, even preseason ones, so the discerning Pittsburgh-based Ranger fan is left with no choice but to stay up for the encore showings for his preseason fix. When the game is a 9:00 puck drop to begin with, that means watching the game starting at 12:30 AM. Plus, the listing got fucked last night, so I missed the first and last 10 minutes. So forgive me if my impressions are completely off-base, but here they are anyway!
The two overarching takeaways seem to be: those young forwards are really fast, and we made a lot of defensive mistakes. That is absolutely the right summary. It is also largely uninteresting, because it describes basically every 18-year-old hockey player trying to play at the NHL level ever. So, while I too was impressed by speed and disappointed by defensive lapses, I'm trying not to get too worked up over either.
Here's what I think I learned:
-- I may have been right when I said I like Jesper Fast. He had another impressive offensive game, and I'd like to continue to see more of him in the Blueshirt. Vigneault presumably even liked him enough Monday night that the coach ended up switching him with Kreider, and so he had a chance with Richards and Nash, which was fun. Speaking of lines that may or may not exist in the coach's head, the Pouliot-Brassard-Zuccarello line appears to remain a thing, at least for now.
-- I may have been wrong when I said I like Justin Falk. Obviously, Monday's 1-game sample is no bigger than than the previous Monday's was, but he was a step behind in it. Does this mean he's worse than Stralman? Or penalty magnet Stu Bickel? Who can say?
-- I now have something to say about Marek Hrivik: Hooray Marek Hrivik! Dude's been hanging out with Danny Kristo, and it's been quick and delightful. You know that feeling you get whenever you watch the Oilers play these days? Like, you know they aren't actually a big deal, and that none of this holds up, but you can't help getting excited? That's how it is to watch these two. It's starting to look like Hrivik, Kristo, Fast, and Pouliot should top the list of forwards you've never heard of who might still be around next week.
-- Relatedly, I'm just missing the Oscar Lindberg boat for some reason. He centered that duo last night, and he seems to be on the coach's short(er) list, but he hasn't stood out for me at all.
-- This part sucks. Arron Asham has actually had a pretty good camp. Understand: this does not make him any less of a codpiece, and it would be far easier to root for a Ranger team without him than with him. But, he's been fast, strong on the puck, making the right passes, and responsibly position. I'm sad about it, because if he'd looked this week like he looked last season, I wouldn't still be faced with a reasonable possibility of rooting for a team that employs Arron Asham. Other people this is bad news for: Micheal Haley.
-- Meanwhile, while I'm not inherently opposed to Vigneault's experimentation among forward positions, either I've found center Darroll Powe to be significantly less effective than winger Darroll Powe, or I'm remembering winger Darroll Powe as being better than he was. Brandon Mashinter hasn't looked any better, but he's not supposed to, and he did punch Cam Janssen's face a lot last week, so for some reason I just have more positive feelings about him.
-- Aaron Johnson has not gotten any better since last week, paired last night with the Invisible Tommy Hughes. I wouldn't blink if both were cut today. Conor Allen, on the other hand, actually made some nice plays opposite Marc Staal. Although, maybe that's just the effect of being opposite Marc Staal. In the best news of all, against all odds, Marc Staal appears to be Marc Staal again.
-- None of Dylan McIlrath, Danny Syvret, Michael Kantor, and Andrew Yogan got the chance to suit up in either of these two games, after all had uninspiring showings last Tuesday. With only two preseason games left and a 39-man roster still to be whittled down, I can't imagine the Rangers holding onto spots for any of these guys (although my imagination may be lacking).
-- It was nice to see J.T. Miller finally get some action after starting camp with an injury. He looked all right, but it's hard to judge either way after just the one game. So this is me, spending three sentences to say "I don't really know what to think about J.T. Miller right now."
Is that everyone? I hope that's everyone. With the final two games of the preseason tomorrow night and Friday night, I expect more roster cuts today, though it's hard to say how many (Twitter, the ultimate source for such things, seems somewhat split on this issue right now). I guess, looking at what I've just written, that the obvious cuts are something like: Haley, Kantor, Mashinter, Yogan, Johnson, Hughes, McIlrath, and Syvret. That's 4 forwards and 4 D-men, bringing us to 19 and 9. If I were in charge, it looks like I'd also cut Powe and Lindberg (and probably Bickel, whom I left off of that list because we don't need to go down to 8 defensemen yet and because my father likes him).
So, those were my impressions. I guess we'll see later today how closely they line up with the coaching staff's.
The two overarching takeaways seem to be: those young forwards are really fast, and we made a lot of defensive mistakes. That is absolutely the right summary. It is also largely uninteresting, because it describes basically every 18-year-old hockey player trying to play at the NHL level ever. So, while I too was impressed by speed and disappointed by defensive lapses, I'm trying not to get too worked up over either.
Here's what I think I learned:
-- I may have been right when I said I like Jesper Fast. He had another impressive offensive game, and I'd like to continue to see more of him in the Blueshirt. Vigneault presumably even liked him enough Monday night that the coach ended up switching him with Kreider, and so he had a chance with Richards and Nash, which was fun. Speaking of lines that may or may not exist in the coach's head, the Pouliot-Brassard-Zuccarello line appears to remain a thing, at least for now.
-- I may have been wrong when I said I like Justin Falk. Obviously, Monday's 1-game sample is no bigger than than the previous Monday's was, but he was a step behind in it. Does this mean he's worse than Stralman? Or penalty magnet Stu Bickel? Who can say?
-- I now have something to say about Marek Hrivik: Hooray Marek Hrivik! Dude's been hanging out with Danny Kristo, and it's been quick and delightful. You know that feeling you get whenever you watch the Oilers play these days? Like, you know they aren't actually a big deal, and that none of this holds up, but you can't help getting excited? That's how it is to watch these two. It's starting to look like Hrivik, Kristo, Fast, and Pouliot should top the list of forwards you've never heard of who might still be around next week.
-- Relatedly, I'm just missing the Oscar Lindberg boat for some reason. He centered that duo last night, and he seems to be on the coach's short(er) list, but he hasn't stood out for me at all.
-- This part sucks. Arron Asham has actually had a pretty good camp. Understand: this does not make him any less of a codpiece, and it would be far easier to root for a Ranger team without him than with him. But, he's been fast, strong on the puck, making the right passes, and responsibly position. I'm sad about it, because if he'd looked this week like he looked last season, I wouldn't still be faced with a reasonable possibility of rooting for a team that employs Arron Asham. Other people this is bad news for: Micheal Haley.
-- Meanwhile, while I'm not inherently opposed to Vigneault's experimentation among forward positions, either I've found center Darroll Powe to be significantly less effective than winger Darroll Powe, or I'm remembering winger Darroll Powe as being better than he was. Brandon Mashinter hasn't looked any better, but he's not supposed to, and he did punch Cam Janssen's face a lot last week, so for some reason I just have more positive feelings about him.
-- Aaron Johnson has not gotten any better since last week, paired last night with the Invisible Tommy Hughes. I wouldn't blink if both were cut today. Conor Allen, on the other hand, actually made some nice plays opposite Marc Staal. Although, maybe that's just the effect of being opposite Marc Staal. In the best news of all, against all odds, Marc Staal appears to be Marc Staal again.
-- None of Dylan McIlrath, Danny Syvret, Michael Kantor, and Andrew Yogan got the chance to suit up in either of these two games, after all had uninspiring showings last Tuesday. With only two preseason games left and a 39-man roster still to be whittled down, I can't imagine the Rangers holding onto spots for any of these guys (although my imagination may be lacking).
-- It was nice to see J.T. Miller finally get some action after starting camp with an injury. He looked all right, but it's hard to judge either way after just the one game. So this is me, spending three sentences to say "I don't really know what to think about J.T. Miller right now."
Is that everyone? I hope that's everyone. With the final two games of the preseason tomorrow night and Friday night, I expect more roster cuts today, though it's hard to say how many (Twitter, the ultimate source for such things, seems somewhat split on this issue right now). I guess, looking at what I've just written, that the obvious cuts are something like: Haley, Kantor, Mashinter, Yogan, Johnson, Hughes, McIlrath, and Syvret. That's 4 forwards and 4 D-men, bringing us to 19 and 9. If I were in charge, it looks like I'd also cut Powe and Lindberg (and probably Bickel, whom I left off of that list because we don't need to go down to 8 defensemen yet and because my father likes him).
So, those were my impressions. I guess we'll see later today how closely they line up with the coaching staff's.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Wild Speculation!
You know what I missed most about sports blogging, you guys? No, it wasn't the steady paycheck nor the inherent respect that comes with the position, but good guesses. No, it was the wild speculation! You see, when actual hockey is happening, it's easy to stay entertained by hockey, because there is hockey. But when shit like a week of training camp in Banff, Alberta between preseason games happens, what is an obsessive fan to do?
I'll tell you: blog irresponsibly about what the fantasy Rangers in my head might look like in a few weeks, when there is actual hockey! Now is arguably the perfect time to be a fan, in one's imagination: we've already got enough specific information about the squad to imagine what the lineup might look like, but we've yet to experience any of the inevitable disappointment that comes with watching the actual team play actual games. Hooray! Let's go Rangers!
Vigneault has said that he ultimately wants to carry 8 defensemen on the roster, because he feels like they're more versatile (it's easier for them to fill in for forwards than vice versa), which gives us an idea of the ultimate opening night roster size: 12 forwards, 8 blue liners, and 2 goalies. The netminders are easy: barring catastrophe, Talbot needs the playing opportunity afforded by the starting position on the Wolfpack, leaving Biron to back up Lundqvist.
On D, it's starting to look like the opening night top 6 are pretty much set. The coach has said that he likes McDonagh with Girardi, Staal with Del Zotto, and Stralman with Moore. I'd like to see Falk paired with Moore instead, but like so many of his predecessors, Alain Vigneault stubbornly refuses to call me for advice. That basically leaves Bickel, Falk, Johnson, Allen, Hughes, McIlrath, and Syrvet competing for the 2 spots in the "extra" pair. I'd be disappointed and surprised if one of those didn't go to Falk, but I imagine the other is legitimately up for grabs.
Up front, conventional wisdom is that the top line is shaping up to be Richards centering Nash and Kreider. Score one for conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom also expects a line of Brassard between Pouliot and Zuccarello. I'm not as convinced of Pouliot as conventional wisdom is, but we're blogging irresponsibly, so let's go with it. With the "missing persons" line (Stepan between Callahan and Hagelin) likely to be back within the first month, that leaves us two lines to totally fabricate: the "4th line" (which would be promoted to 3rd in the beginning of the season) and the "5th line" (which would be cut once the missing persons line returns).
It seems pretty clear that Boyle and Moore are the two centers who round out those lines, and it's likely they'll also include Pyatt and Dorsett. That leaves 11 forwards vying for those last 2 opening night wings. Haley, Lindberg, and Miller are all natural centermen, and Asham's a fuck, which brings us down to 7 legitimate candidates for those two spots: Powe, Fast, Hrivik, Kantor, Kristo, Mashinter, and Yogan. Based solely on his play last week, I'd really like to see Fast get a chance with one of them. Meanwhile, to split the lines, let's say that Pyatt and Dorsett are the "4th line" wings, and that Boyle vs. Moore is a legitimate competition to center those two.
Incidentally, we can now do some clearer cap math. Let's assume that the missing persons line is back and that we were right about all our wild assumptions here. Then, given the least expensive variation (Syrvet as the 8th D; Moore at center), the Rangers' cap total without Stepan would be $59,102,500. The most expensive variation (Allen as the 8th D; Boyle at center) ups that to $60,990,000. This year's cap is $64.3 million, leaving the Rangers somewhere between $3.3 million and $5.2 million to sign Stepan and leave room to maneuver throughout the season. With the Rangers reportedly offering Stepan $3 million while he asks for 3.5, it sounds like best case, we'll have just over $2 million of wiggle room this season, and worst case, we'll be right up against the cap.
Of course, that's all based on lineups I completely invented, so none of it really means anything. But that's what you get when the team is at training camp in Banff.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Childhood tales
When young Derek Stepan was skating for prestigious Shattuck-St. Mary's in Faribault, Minnesota, I bet he dreamed of being a professional hockey player one day, don't you? And when his success there moved him on to college as a Wisconsin Badger, don't you think he dreamed of being drafted one day soon? Maybe for his hometown Minnesota Wild, or maybe even an Original Six franchise, like the nearby Chicago Blackhawks. Maybe he even hoped, against the odds, to be picked up by the Original Six team that once drafted his father, Brad Stepan. Do you think he imagined what it would be like to compete against other 20-year-olds, to try to crack the lineup of the 80-year-old franchise and play professional hockey under the jumbotron in the world's most famous arena?
And then he was, like his father before him, drafted by the New York Rangers. He finally had his opportunity to be an NHL center, playing the game at the highest level. And he performed well at camp, and he had his chance to really play - all his life, I bet, had led up to that moment in a way. Do you think he talked to his family and friends about it? Do you think he said stuff like "all my dreams are coming true" or "this is what I've always wanted"? Do you think he said "I hope I can do everything I can to get this team to lift the Stanley Cup"? Or maybe just "this is an opportunity for me to be the best I can possibly be at the thing I love most"?
Do you think that, at any point, any of that was followed up with "unless my team is having salary cap issues, but my agent thinks I can squeeze an extra few hundred thousand bucks a year out of them - then I'm staying home no matter what"?
At what point do you become the kind of person who, when offered 3 million dollars a year for the next 2 years to play hockey at the NHL level on the team you've had so much success with, says "I won't take a penny less than 3.5 million" and just cold refuses to report? The kind of person who believes, so strongly, that he deserves three and a half million dollars a year that he would rather just stay home and forsake the NHL, his team, and his own personal development than accept three million and play?
And what's the endgame? Root against the Rangers for a while? Hope they're so bad that management decides that it needs you; that the extra half a million against the cap is worth it? That they come running back and apologize to you, paying you more despite their need to re-sign actual unrestricted free agents like Dan Girardi, Ryan Callahan, and Henrik Lundqvist less than one year from now? Walk back into the locker room as your new teammates' savior? And what do you do if the Rangers find success without you? Return sheepishly in mid-October to a room full of Rangers and coaches who wonder why you thought this holdout was worth you spending the next month or two half a step behind, catching up to a new system that everyone else started working on in early September?
What is in your head, child, as you watch on MSG as the coaches help develop offensive talent in players like Kreider and Fast, Brassard and Pouliot? Because unless it's "I do not need that coaching help or that team chemistry as much as I need an extra 500K on top of my 3 million dollar offer," then you are not acting in accordance with your brain. Nut up, sign a piece of paper, and get on a plane to Banff full of contrition, you goddamn dingleberry.
And then he was, like his father before him, drafted by the New York Rangers. He finally had his opportunity to be an NHL center, playing the game at the highest level. And he performed well at camp, and he had his chance to really play - all his life, I bet, had led up to that moment in a way. Do you think he talked to his family and friends about it? Do you think he said stuff like "all my dreams are coming true" or "this is what I've always wanted"? Do you think he said "I hope I can do everything I can to get this team to lift the Stanley Cup"? Or maybe just "this is an opportunity for me to be the best I can possibly be at the thing I love most"?
Do you think that, at any point, any of that was followed up with "unless my team is having salary cap issues, but my agent thinks I can squeeze an extra few hundred thousand bucks a year out of them - then I'm staying home no matter what"?
At what point do you become the kind of person who, when offered 3 million dollars a year for the next 2 years to play hockey at the NHL level on the team you've had so much success with, says "I won't take a penny less than 3.5 million" and just cold refuses to report? The kind of person who believes, so strongly, that he deserves three and a half million dollars a year that he would rather just stay home and forsake the NHL, his team, and his own personal development than accept three million and play?
And what's the endgame? Root against the Rangers for a while? Hope they're so bad that management decides that it needs you; that the extra half a million against the cap is worth it? That they come running back and apologize to you, paying you more despite their need to re-sign actual unrestricted free agents like Dan Girardi, Ryan Callahan, and Henrik Lundqvist less than one year from now? Walk back into the locker room as your new teammates' savior? And what do you do if the Rangers find success without you? Return sheepishly in mid-October to a room full of Rangers and coaches who wonder why you thought this holdout was worth you spending the next month or two half a step behind, catching up to a new system that everyone else started working on in early September?
What is in your head, child, as you watch on MSG as the coaches help develop offensive talent in players like Kreider and Fast, Brassard and Pouliot? Because unless it's "I do not need that coaching help or that team chemistry as much as I need an extra 500K on top of my 3 million dollar offer," then you are not acting in accordance with your brain. Nut up, sign a piece of paper, and get on a plane to Banff full of contrition, you goddamn dingleberry.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
More roster cuts
Before leaving for their West Coast pre-season road trip, Vigneault was expected to make a few more cuts today, and he did. The Rangers cut a modest 6 players this morning. Here's who:
Goalie Johan Hedberg, who really was apparently only brought in on a tryout in case Biron's mysterious late reporting turned out to be a Thing. It did not, and Moose never saw a second of preseason game time before being cut this morning. Yikes. Hedberg is now released into the world of unrestricted free agency; the rest of these guys will be sent back to Hartford.
Forwards Josh Nicholls and Michael St. Croix, who are on two-way contracts with the Rangers and the Wolfpack, and defenseman Brendon Nash, who is signed with only the Wolfpack. These guys didn't get dressed for either of this week's games, so there's not much to say about them. Such is the life of a prospect.
Forward Ryan Bourque, whom I noted yesterday looked disappointing in Monday night's contest against Some Of The Devils. Vigneault's staff seems to agree. Next camp, he'll be 23 and drafted 5 years earlier. Anyone else starting to think that the hype was really all based on his last name?
Forward Shawn O'Donnell, who is signed only with the Wolfpack. I still have nothing to say about Shawn O'Donnell.
Interestingly, in cutting Hedberg, Nash, and O'Donnell, the Rangers got rid of everyone left on the list who does not have some sort of contract (1-way or 2-way) with them (Derek Stepan notwithstanding). Also, in cutting Hedberg, Nash, Nicholls, and St. Croix, they rid themselves of almost everyone who had not yet played a preseason game. Excepting Stepan and the injured two (Ryan Callahan and Carl Hagelin), that list is now down to two: J.T. Miller, who is healthy now but wasn't at the time of the preseason games, and defenseman Tommy Hughes, the lone healthy scratch through both games who is still on the camp list. Good for you, Tommy!
For those of you keeping score, the cuts should bring us down to 40, but the Rangers' current camp roster actually only bears 39 names: it is missing Derek Stepan's entirely. This is a notable change: the Blueshirts United article about the last round of cuts specifically said the list was down to 46, which would have included Stepan. The latest article refers to 6 but says that the list is now down to 39, which would not. Now, this doesn't mean that Stepan won't be a Ranger - it's hard to imagine him actually holding out for too long after the season starts (for reference, P.K. Subban's holdout last season lasted 4 Canadiens regular season games), and it's hard to imagine any GM actually writing an offer sheet (ever, for some reason). It's largely just yet another sign that negotiations are still not going well. And no matter the details or the outcome, the longer it lasts, the worse it is for both Stepan and the Rangers.
The remaining 39 (discounting Stepan, as the Rangers' list has now done) break down as 23 forwards, 13 defensemen, and 3 goalies. Because it is now convenient to do so, I'll go ahead and recompile them from my previous two posts.
Players with NHL Contracts (Cap hit is noted)
Forwards (14): Arron Asham ($1m), Brian Boyle ($1.7m), Derick Brassard ($3.2m), Ryan Callahan** ($4.275m), Derek Dorsett ($1,633,333), Carl Hagelin** ($2.25m), Micheal Haley ($600,000), Dominic Moore ($1m), Rick Nash ($7.8m), Benoit Pouliot ($1.3m), Darroll Powe ($1,066,667), Taylor Pyatt ($1.55m), Brad Richards ($6,666,667), Mats Zuccarello ($1.15m)
Defensemen (8): Stu Bickel ($750,000), Michael Del Zotto ($2.55m), Justin Falk ($975,000), Dan Girardi ($3.325m), Aaron Johnson ($600,000), Ryan McDonagh ($4.7m), Marc Staal ($3.975m), Anton Stralman ($1.7m)
Goalies (2): Martin Biron ($1.3m), Henrik Lundqvist ($6.875m)
(** = Injured, likely to be inactive on opening night)
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (9): Jesper Fast ($900,000), Marek Hrivik ($685,000), Michael Kantor ($583,333), Chris Kreider ($1.325m), Danny Kristo ($1.3m), Oscar Lindberg ($760,000), Brandon Mashinter ($605,000), J.T. Miller** ($1,244,167), Andrew Yogan ($800,000)
Defensemen (5): Conor Allen ($1.775m), Tommy Hughes** ($608,333), Dylan McIlrath ($1.295), John Moore ($965,000), Danny Syrvet ($587,500)
Goalies (1): Cam Talbot ($562,500)
(** = Has not yet played in a game this preseason)
Those are the 39 players that will continue camp out west and eventually be trimmed down to an opening night roster. Since two will likely start the season on the injured reserve list, and therefore inactive, the minimum number of cuts the Rangers need to make is only 14, to get down to the 23-person limit. But I'd expect a few more than that before the puck drops October 3, since Callahan and Hagelin will likely return before November, Stepan might decide he wants to be a professional hockey player after all, and 23 is kind of a lot anyway. Meanwhile, until next week, if we're lucky, maybe MSG will televise more of training camp?
Goalie Johan Hedberg, who really was apparently only brought in on a tryout in case Biron's mysterious late reporting turned out to be a Thing. It did not, and Moose never saw a second of preseason game time before being cut this morning. Yikes. Hedberg is now released into the world of unrestricted free agency; the rest of these guys will be sent back to Hartford.
Forwards Josh Nicholls and Michael St. Croix, who are on two-way contracts with the Rangers and the Wolfpack, and defenseman Brendon Nash, who is signed with only the Wolfpack. These guys didn't get dressed for either of this week's games, so there's not much to say about them. Such is the life of a prospect.
Forward Ryan Bourque, whom I noted yesterday looked disappointing in Monday night's contest against Some Of The Devils. Vigneault's staff seems to agree. Next camp, he'll be 23 and drafted 5 years earlier. Anyone else starting to think that the hype was really all based on his last name?
Forward Shawn O'Donnell, who is signed only with the Wolfpack. I still have nothing to say about Shawn O'Donnell.
Interestingly, in cutting Hedberg, Nash, and O'Donnell, the Rangers got rid of everyone left on the list who does not have some sort of contract (1-way or 2-way) with them (Derek Stepan notwithstanding). Also, in cutting Hedberg, Nash, Nicholls, and St. Croix, they rid themselves of almost everyone who had not yet played a preseason game. Excepting Stepan and the injured two (Ryan Callahan and Carl Hagelin), that list is now down to two: J.T. Miller, who is healthy now but wasn't at the time of the preseason games, and defenseman Tommy Hughes, the lone healthy scratch through both games who is still on the camp list. Good for you, Tommy!
For those of you keeping score, the cuts should bring us down to 40, but the Rangers' current camp roster actually only bears 39 names: it is missing Derek Stepan's entirely. This is a notable change: the Blueshirts United article about the last round of cuts specifically said the list was down to 46, which would have included Stepan. The latest article refers to 6 but says that the list is now down to 39, which would not. Now, this doesn't mean that Stepan won't be a Ranger - it's hard to imagine him actually holding out for too long after the season starts (for reference, P.K. Subban's holdout last season lasted 4 Canadiens regular season games), and it's hard to imagine any GM actually writing an offer sheet (ever, for some reason). It's largely just yet another sign that negotiations are still not going well. And no matter the details or the outcome, the longer it lasts, the worse it is for both Stepan and the Rangers.
The remaining 39 (discounting Stepan, as the Rangers' list has now done) break down as 23 forwards, 13 defensemen, and 3 goalies. Because it is now convenient to do so, I'll go ahead and recompile them from my previous two posts.
Players with NHL Contracts (Cap hit is noted)
Forwards (14): Arron Asham ($1m), Brian Boyle ($1.7m), Derick Brassard ($3.2m), Ryan Callahan** ($4.275m), Derek Dorsett ($1,633,333), Carl Hagelin** ($2.25m), Micheal Haley ($600,000), Dominic Moore ($1m), Rick Nash ($7.8m), Benoit Pouliot ($1.3m), Darroll Powe ($1,066,667), Taylor Pyatt ($1.55m), Brad Richards ($6,666,667), Mats Zuccarello ($1.15m)
Defensemen (8): Stu Bickel ($750,000), Michael Del Zotto ($2.55m), Justin Falk ($975,000), Dan Girardi ($3.325m), Aaron Johnson ($600,000), Ryan McDonagh ($4.7m), Marc Staal ($3.975m), Anton Stralman ($1.7m)
Goalies (2): Martin Biron ($1.3m), Henrik Lundqvist ($6.875m)
(** = Injured, likely to be inactive on opening night)
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (9): Jesper Fast ($900,000), Marek Hrivik ($685,000), Michael Kantor ($583,333), Chris Kreider ($1.325m), Danny Kristo ($1.3m), Oscar Lindberg ($760,000), Brandon Mashinter ($605,000), J.T. Miller** ($1,244,167), Andrew Yogan ($800,000)
Defensemen (5): Conor Allen ($1.775m), Tommy Hughes** ($608,333), Dylan McIlrath ($1.295), John Moore ($965,000), Danny Syrvet ($587,500)
Goalies (1): Cam Talbot ($562,500)
(** = Has not yet played in a game this preseason)
Those are the 39 players that will continue camp out west and eventually be trimmed down to an opening night roster. Since two will likely start the season on the injured reserve list, and therefore inactive, the minimum number of cuts the Rangers need to make is only 14, to get down to the 23-person limit. But I'd expect a few more than that before the puck drops October 3, since Callahan and Hagelin will likely return before November, Stepan might decide he wants to be a professional hockey player after all, and 23 is kind of a lot anyway. Meanwhile, until next week, if we're lucky, maybe MSG will televise more of training camp?
Here let me summarize this for you
These early preseason games are so we can evaluate the newcomers and prospects, right? So forgive me for not being excited about Brassard again yet - it's not that I don't think he was great last night, it's just that that doesn't matter to me right now. Look. Here's what you care about from last night's game:
1. Jesper Fast looks awesome.
2. Benoit Pouliot is fast.
The end. Everyone else = that 90s sarcastic kid thing where you put your hand up and move it like it's a mouth. Goodbye; I'll be back in a few hours, after the next round of cuts is made, almost certainly to lament their inclusion of Brandon Mashinter, who so justly and resoundingly punched Cam Janssen's stupid face not 2 full days ago.
1. Jesper Fast looks awesome.
2. Benoit Pouliot is fast.
The end. Everyone else = that 90s sarcastic kid thing where you put your hand up and move it like it's a mouth. Goodbye; I'll be back in a few hours, after the next round of cuts is made, almost certainly to lament their inclusion of Brandon Mashinter, who so justly and resoundingly punched Cam Janssen's stupid face not 2 full days ago.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Preseason: Day 2
Not a ton to say about last night's 2-1 loss at the hands of Some Of The Devils. But based on those 60 preseason minutes, here's how I felt about those Rangers that weren't a few months ago, in a new (and probably one-time) feature I'm calling Yay/Meh/Boo.
Yay!
Justin Falk - Could this guy finally be that reliable #6 that so very many people have failed to be? I liked a lot of what I saw from him, on both sides of the puck. The same cannot be said for his partner.
Dominic Moore - Watching that goal felt really, really good. Impossible not to love this guy. Welcome home, Dom.
Danny Kristo - Looked good in a number of different situations tonight. Obviously, I'm not falling in love with anyone at this stage, but I'm prepared to go on a second date with Danny Kristo.
Cam Talbot - Pleasantly positive performance from Talbot. Dude made a lot of good-looking stops. If the Rangers were a team in need of a young starter, I would have been bolstered by Talbot's play. As it is, it's good news for the Wolfpack.
Brandon Mashinter - Cam Janssen is a terrible fuck with an exceptionally stupid face. The more punches that are delivered to that face, the happier that I am. Brandon Mashinter did an excellent job of delivering punches to Cam Janssen's face. Ergo I like Brandon Mashinter.
Meh!
Marek Hrivik - I have nothing to say about Marek Hrivik.
Shawn O'Donnell - I have nothing to say about Shawn O'Donnell.
Boo!
Aaron Johnson - A huge disappointment, since he was one of the reasons everyone said the Rangers suddenly have defensive depth. Doubly so because I was hoping he'd teach Asham how to spell our name correctly. The Falk/Johnson pairing was a sharp comparison, and it did not look good for Johnson.
Ryan Bourque - There'd been big talk about this kid, whom I think I recall being decent in the preseason 2 years ago. Maybe it was just the name, or maybe he had a bad night, but even on this half-team, dude was a non-factor.
So, anyway. There are 28 forwards, 14 defensemen, and 4 goalies left on the Rangers' camp list. Yesterday, before I ran out of time, we took a contract-level look at the 20 players that have already been dismissed from camp and the 20 who played in last night's game. That leaves 26 people who remain at camp but who did not play last night. Let's dive into them now. We'll start with the ones you will see tonight in Philadelphia. Vigneault (gotta learn to spell that more easily - it's preseason for bloggers, too) is giving a handful of players the chance to play in both of these first-week preseason games, dressing Moore, Powe, and Talbot for a second night in a row (the goalie starts had already been planned, but given how they played last night, I wildly speculate that this is good news for Moore and bad news for Powe). So, that means we're seeing 17 "new" guys (10 of 12 forwards, 1 of 2 goalies, and all 6 blueliners) tonight. Here's who they are:
Players with NHL Contracts (Cap hit is noted)
Forwards (6): Derick Brassard ($3.2m), Derek Dorsett ($1,633,333), Micheal Haley ($600,000), Benoit Pouliot ($1.3m), Taylor Pyatt ($1.55m), Mats Zuccarello ($1.15m)
Defensemen (3): Dan Girardi ($3.325m), Ryan McDonagh ($4.7m), Anton Stralman ($1.7m)
Goalies (1): Martin Biron ($1.3m)
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (4): Jesper Fast ($900,000), Michael Kantor ($583,333), Oscar Lindberg ($760,000), Andrew Yogan ($800,000)
Defensemen (3): Conor Allen ($1.775m), Dylan McIlrath ($1.295), Danny Syrvet ($587,500)
So, after tonight, we'll have seen 22 of 28 forwards, 12 of 14 defensemen, and 3 of 4 goalies remaining at camp. That leaves 9 players we won't have seen. Of these, there are 4 forwards who can't be played right now: 3 because they're injured, and one because he hasn't reported to camp yet because he has no contract. Carl Hagelin and Ryan Callahan, you'll recall, had shoulder surgery on the same day soon after the Rangers' season ended, and they are (as expected) not yet fully healed - in fact, it is likely both will miss the start of the season. J.T. Miller's tweaked a hamstring at camp on Thursday morning and was expected back the next day; as of yesterday, he still hadn't returned to the ice, but reports are that he is skating at camp today (though still not playing tonight).
Meanwhile, to recap what's up with Derek Stepan, he's a restricted free agent who is not eligible for arbitration. Here's what that means: once the Rangers extend him a qualifying offer (for Stepan, this is 1 year at $826,875), he basically has to either take it or not play in the NHL (the exception would be if some team gives him an offer sheet, which would be a pretty smart idea for plenty of teams, but for some reason GMs never do this). Stepan knows he deserves more than this, so he's holding out. The Rangers know he has no leverage, so they're playing hardball. Hence: no contract. NB: Nothing is preventing Stepan from attending training camp without a contract - plenty of unrestricted free agents do this on tryouts every year - but generally when you have these contract holdouts, the players choose not to report. Is this stunting his development as a member of the team under the new coach? Probably! But hey, fuck it - Brandon Dubinsky and the Rangers did this a few years ago, and his future with the organization turned out just fine, right? Guys?
Players with NHL Contracts (Cap hit is noted)
Forwards (2): Ryan Callahan ($4.275m), Carl Hagelin ($2.25m)
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (1): J.T. Miller ($1,244,167)
Restricted Free Agents Ineligible for Arbitration
Forwards (1): Derek Stepan
And so, we've now covered 41 of the 46 guys left on the camp list, leaving behind the 2 forwards, 2 defensemen, and a goalie who are potentially active players but who won't have played in either of these first two games. Does that mean these 5 are likely cuts this week? It's hard to imagine not still carrying Hedberg into next week, and there was no way Vigneault could have played more than 12 defensemen across 2 games, but you have to imagine that at least the 2 forwards who won't play tonight, in favor of Moore and Powe (both of whom played last night), can't be feeling super comfortable. And here's the last five.
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (2): Josh Nicholls ($925,000), Michael St. Croix ($870,000)
Defensemen (1): Tommy Hughes ($608,333)
Unaffiliated Players
Defensemen (1): Brendon Nash (Under contract with Wolfpack)
Goalies (1): Johan Hedberg (Unrestricted Free Agent on Tryout)
So that's it. The Rangers have an unsurprisingly stupid preseason schedule, playing last night and tonight, then off until next Monday, which starts a 4-games-in-5-nights West Coast trip to finish off the preseason. So, I'd expect a modest round of cuts sometime in the next couple of days (Larry Brooks reports that the Rangers could bring up to 21 forwards, 14 D-men, and 4 goalies with them, which, given 2 injured forwards, would only require 3 total cuts assuming Stepan does not report), and then nothing until next week, when a lot will happen. After this week's cuts, I may recompile these lists together, for my own benefit. Maybe I'll put that shit on the Internet, even?
Yay!
Justin Falk - Could this guy finally be that reliable #6 that so very many people have failed to be? I liked a lot of what I saw from him, on both sides of the puck. The same cannot be said for his partner.
Dominic Moore - Watching that goal felt really, really good. Impossible not to love this guy. Welcome home, Dom.
Danny Kristo - Looked good in a number of different situations tonight. Obviously, I'm not falling in love with anyone at this stage, but I'm prepared to go on a second date with Danny Kristo.
Cam Talbot - Pleasantly positive performance from Talbot. Dude made a lot of good-looking stops. If the Rangers were a team in need of a young starter, I would have been bolstered by Talbot's play. As it is, it's good news for the Wolfpack.
Brandon Mashinter - Cam Janssen is a terrible fuck with an exceptionally stupid face. The more punches that are delivered to that face, the happier that I am. Brandon Mashinter did an excellent job of delivering punches to Cam Janssen's face. Ergo I like Brandon Mashinter.
Meh!
Marek Hrivik - I have nothing to say about Marek Hrivik.
Shawn O'Donnell - I have nothing to say about Shawn O'Donnell.
Boo!
Aaron Johnson - A huge disappointment, since he was one of the reasons everyone said the Rangers suddenly have defensive depth. Doubly so because I was hoping he'd teach Asham how to spell our name correctly. The Falk/Johnson pairing was a sharp comparison, and it did not look good for Johnson.
Ryan Bourque - There'd been big talk about this kid, whom I think I recall being decent in the preseason 2 years ago. Maybe it was just the name, or maybe he had a bad night, but even on this half-team, dude was a non-factor.
So, anyway. There are 28 forwards, 14 defensemen, and 4 goalies left on the Rangers' camp list. Yesterday, before I ran out of time, we took a contract-level look at the 20 players that have already been dismissed from camp and the 20 who played in last night's game. That leaves 26 people who remain at camp but who did not play last night. Let's dive into them now. We'll start with the ones you will see tonight in Philadelphia. Vigneault (gotta learn to spell that more easily - it's preseason for bloggers, too) is giving a handful of players the chance to play in both of these first-week preseason games, dressing Moore, Powe, and Talbot for a second night in a row (the goalie starts had already been planned, but given how they played last night, I wildly speculate that this is good news for Moore and bad news for Powe). So, that means we're seeing 17 "new" guys (10 of 12 forwards, 1 of 2 goalies, and all 6 blueliners) tonight. Here's who they are:
Players with NHL Contracts (Cap hit is noted)
Forwards (6): Derick Brassard ($3.2m), Derek Dorsett ($1,633,333), Micheal Haley ($600,000), Benoit Pouliot ($1.3m), Taylor Pyatt ($1.55m), Mats Zuccarello ($1.15m)
Defensemen (3): Dan Girardi ($3.325m), Ryan McDonagh ($4.7m), Anton Stralman ($1.7m)
Goalies (1): Martin Biron ($1.3m)
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (4): Jesper Fast ($900,000), Michael Kantor ($583,333), Oscar Lindberg ($760,000), Andrew Yogan ($800,000)
Defensemen (3): Conor Allen ($1.775m), Dylan McIlrath ($1.295), Danny Syrvet ($587,500)
So, after tonight, we'll have seen 22 of 28 forwards, 12 of 14 defensemen, and 3 of 4 goalies remaining at camp. That leaves 9 players we won't have seen. Of these, there are 4 forwards who can't be played right now: 3 because they're injured, and one because he hasn't reported to camp yet because he has no contract. Carl Hagelin and Ryan Callahan, you'll recall, had shoulder surgery on the same day soon after the Rangers' season ended, and they are (as expected) not yet fully healed - in fact, it is likely both will miss the start of the season. J.T. Miller's tweaked a hamstring at camp on Thursday morning and was expected back the next day; as of yesterday, he still hadn't returned to the ice, but reports are that he is skating at camp today (though still not playing tonight).
Meanwhile, to recap what's up with Derek Stepan, he's a restricted free agent who is not eligible for arbitration. Here's what that means: once the Rangers extend him a qualifying offer (for Stepan, this is 1 year at $826,875), he basically has to either take it or not play in the NHL (the exception would be if some team gives him an offer sheet, which would be a pretty smart idea for plenty of teams, but for some reason GMs never do this). Stepan knows he deserves more than this, so he's holding out. The Rangers know he has no leverage, so they're playing hardball. Hence: no contract. NB: Nothing is preventing Stepan from attending training camp without a contract - plenty of unrestricted free agents do this on tryouts every year - but generally when you have these contract holdouts, the players choose not to report. Is this stunting his development as a member of the team under the new coach? Probably! But hey, fuck it - Brandon Dubinsky and the Rangers did this a few years ago, and his future with the organization turned out just fine, right? Guys?
Players with NHL Contracts (Cap hit is noted)
Forwards (2): Ryan Callahan ($4.275m), Carl Hagelin ($2.25m)
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (1): J.T. Miller ($1,244,167)
Restricted Free Agents Ineligible for Arbitration
Forwards (1): Derek Stepan
And so, we've now covered 41 of the 46 guys left on the camp list, leaving behind the 2 forwards, 2 defensemen, and a goalie who are potentially active players but who won't have played in either of these first two games. Does that mean these 5 are likely cuts this week? It's hard to imagine not still carrying Hedberg into next week, and there was no way Vigneault could have played more than 12 defensemen across 2 games, but you have to imagine that at least the 2 forwards who won't play tonight, in favor of Moore and Powe (both of whom played last night), can't be feeling super comfortable. And here's the last five.
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (2): Josh Nicholls ($925,000), Michael St. Croix ($870,000)
Defensemen (1): Tommy Hughes ($608,333)
Unaffiliated Players
Defensemen (1): Brendon Nash (Under contract with Wolfpack)
Goalies (1): Johan Hedberg (Unrestricted Free Agent on Tryout)
So that's it. The Rangers have an unsurprisingly stupid preseason schedule, playing last night and tonight, then off until next Monday, which starts a 4-games-in-5-nights West Coast trip to finish off the preseason. So, I'd expect a modest round of cuts sometime in the next couple of days (Larry Brooks reports that the Rangers could bring up to 21 forwards, 14 D-men, and 4 goalies with them, which, given 2 injured forwards, would only require 3 total cuts assuming Stepan does not report), and then nothing until next week, when a lot will happen. After this week's cuts, I may recompile these lists together, for my own benefit. Maybe I'll put that shit on the Internet, even?
Monday, September 16, 2013
HEY GUESS WHAT HOCKEY
February 7, huh? I guess that was a while ago? Look, some shit happened, I bought a house, don't even worry about it. Here's the point. Because I'm a spoiled good-job-having individual in these bullshit economic times, I now have a magical service known as satellite television. Have you heard of this thing, you guys? It is a fantastical creation that allows me, living in the land of pierogies, rivers, and Sidney Crosby, to just cold watch MSG Network. So far, that's basically meant marathons of Four Courses with J. B. Smoove, but tonight? Tonight, it will mean I can watch the fucking preseason. And what better excuse to return to this thing? I mean, hell, there's no risk - no one read this shit even before I unceremoniously disappeared for 7 months.
So, let's talk about training camp. Not that I can add any new information - real reporters are on the Internet now, so all information is instantly everywhere. But, maybe you might find it helpful to look at it the way I do? And the way I do is with all the numbers and names in big fuck-off lists. Obviously.
So, training camp started on Thursday (September 12), with a list of 66 names. From this, the Rangers will trim down to a maximum of 23 men (plus anyone who might be inactive due to injury) for an opening night roster. Of the 66, not all are under contract to the Rangers. Those under contract may be on normal one-way contracts with the Rangers or on two-way contracts with the Rangers and the Wolfpack. Those not under contract may be draft picks whose negotiating rights belong to the Rangers, or they may have no affiliation at all with the Rangers: they may be unsigned, undrafted prospects (possibly under contract with the Wolfpack alone), or they may just be unrestricted free agents at camp on a tryout.
(Of note, there is a limit of 50 total players that can be "owned" by any club, including both players under contract and players whose negotiating rights are owned by the team, such as recent draft picks who have not yet agreed to terms. Camp invitees include many, but not all, of the people on this 50-man list - some players are locked up for the future but obviously will not be on the team this year. The camp list also includes some people not on the list - those entirely unaffiliated with the Rangers.)
So, with all of that in mind, I will go through who was/is at camp now, and what their status is. Big fuck-off lists, people. They're the best.
Camp opened on Thursday with a list of 38 forwards, 20 defensemen, and 8 goalies. Of those, all but 2 reported: Derek Stepan, because he still doesn't have a fucking contract with the Rangers and is a restricted free agent so he has nowhere else to go come on just sign something, and Martin Biron, for some undisclosed personal reason. These 66 also included 6 players who, from what I can tell, were only up because of the Traverse City Tournament, and returned to their junior teams soon after. These 6 were:
Undrafted, Unsigned Prospects (back to their junior teams)
Forwards (4): Taylor Burke, Josh Graves, Dyson Stevenson, Peter Trainor
Unsigned Draft Picks (back to their junior teams)
Forwards (1): Thomas Spelling
Goalies (1): Mackenzie Skapski
So, down to 60 (33 forwards, 20 defensemen, and 7 goalies), camp continued (with Marty Biron reporting on Saturday, so now everyone is present but Stepan). Then, yesterday, 14 further cuts were made. 6 more were sent back to their junior teams, and 8 players were reassigned to the Wolfpack:
Undrafted, Unsigned Prospects (back to their junior teams)
Forwards (1): Klarc Wilson
Defensemen (2): Ben Fanelli, Jimmy Oginly
Unsigned Draft Picks (back to their junior teams)
Forwards (1): Anthony Duclair
Defensemen (1): Ryan Graves
Players with Two-Way Contracts (reassigned to Hartford except where noted, NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (2): Kyle Jean ($925,000), Jason Wilson ($588,333)
Defensemen (2): Troy Donnay (back to junior team, $716,667), Samuel Noreau ($645,000)
Goalies (2): Jason Missiaen ($750,000), Scott Stajcer ($700,000)
Unaffiliated Players (reassigned to Hartford)
Forwards (1): J.T. Barnett (On tryout with Wolfpack)
Defensemen (1): Charlie Dodero (Under contract with Wolfpack)
Goalies (1): Jeff Malcolm (Under contract with Wolfpack)
Which brings us down to the 46 (well, 45 plus Stepan) people left at camp as of today. Of those 46, 20 will be dressed for tonight's preseason opener against the Fucking Devils. Of the remaining 26, many will see action in Philadelphia tomorrow night, after which the Rangers have no further preseason games scheduled until next Monday, in Calgary. So, if I had to guess, I would guess that the next round of cuts will be made after these two games, through which most, but not all, of these guys will see at least some action. Here are the 20 that will be playing tonight:
Players with NHL Contracts (Cap hit is noted)
Forwards (6): Arron Asham ($1m), Brian Boyle ($1.7m), Dominic Moore ($1m), Rick Nash ($7.8m), Darroll Powe ($1,066,667), Brad Richards ($6,666,667)
Defensemen (5): Stu Bickel ($750,000), Michael Del Zotto ($2.55m), Justin Falk ($975,000), Aaron Johnson ($600,000), Marc Staal ($3.975m)
Goalies (1): Henrik Lundqvist ($6.875m)
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (5): Ryan Bourque ($900,000), Marek Hrivik ($685,000), Chris Kreider ($1.325m), Danny Kristo ($1.3m), Brandon Mashinter ($605,000)
Defensemen (1): John Moore ($965,000)
Goalies (1): Cam Talbot ($562,500)
Unaffiliated Players
Forwards (1): Shawn O'Donnell (Under contract with Wolfpack)
I'll break down the remaining 26 players at camp, the ones you won't be seeing tonight, in a later post, because I've run out of time on this one, and the game is in 40 minutes, and I have to get the hell out of my office. Hockey is back, and life is meaningful again!
So, let's talk about training camp. Not that I can add any new information - real reporters are on the Internet now, so all information is instantly everywhere. But, maybe you might find it helpful to look at it the way I do? And the way I do is with all the numbers and names in big fuck-off lists. Obviously.
So, training camp started on Thursday (September 12), with a list of 66 names. From this, the Rangers will trim down to a maximum of 23 men (plus anyone who might be inactive due to injury) for an opening night roster. Of the 66, not all are under contract to the Rangers. Those under contract may be on normal one-way contracts with the Rangers or on two-way contracts with the Rangers and the Wolfpack. Those not under contract may be draft picks whose negotiating rights belong to the Rangers, or they may have no affiliation at all with the Rangers: they may be unsigned, undrafted prospects (possibly under contract with the Wolfpack alone), or they may just be unrestricted free agents at camp on a tryout.
(Of note, there is a limit of 50 total players that can be "owned" by any club, including both players under contract and players whose negotiating rights are owned by the team, such as recent draft picks who have not yet agreed to terms. Camp invitees include many, but not all, of the people on this 50-man list - some players are locked up for the future but obviously will not be on the team this year. The camp list also includes some people not on the list - those entirely unaffiliated with the Rangers.)
So, with all of that in mind, I will go through who was/is at camp now, and what their status is. Big fuck-off lists, people. They're the best.
Camp opened on Thursday with a list of 38 forwards, 20 defensemen, and 8 goalies. Of those, all but 2 reported: Derek Stepan, because he still doesn't have a fucking contract with the Rangers and is a restricted free agent so he has nowhere else to go come on just sign something, and Martin Biron, for some undisclosed personal reason. These 66 also included 6 players who, from what I can tell, were only up because of the Traverse City Tournament, and returned to their junior teams soon after. These 6 were:
Undrafted, Unsigned Prospects (back to their junior teams)
Forwards (4): Taylor Burke, Josh Graves, Dyson Stevenson, Peter Trainor
Unsigned Draft Picks (back to their junior teams)
Forwards (1): Thomas Spelling
Goalies (1): Mackenzie Skapski
So, down to 60 (33 forwards, 20 defensemen, and 7 goalies), camp continued (with Marty Biron reporting on Saturday, so now everyone is present but Stepan). Then, yesterday, 14 further cuts were made. 6 more were sent back to their junior teams, and 8 players were reassigned to the Wolfpack:
Undrafted, Unsigned Prospects (back to their junior teams)
Forwards (1): Klarc Wilson
Defensemen (2): Ben Fanelli, Jimmy Oginly
Unsigned Draft Picks (back to their junior teams)
Forwards (1): Anthony Duclair
Defensemen (1): Ryan Graves
Players with Two-Way Contracts (reassigned to Hartford except where noted, NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (2): Kyle Jean ($925,000), Jason Wilson ($588,333)
Defensemen (2): Troy Donnay (back to junior team, $716,667), Samuel Noreau ($645,000)
Goalies (2): Jason Missiaen ($750,000), Scott Stajcer ($700,000)
Unaffiliated Players (reassigned to Hartford)
Forwards (1): J.T. Barnett (On tryout with Wolfpack)
Defensemen (1): Charlie Dodero (Under contract with Wolfpack)
Goalies (1): Jeff Malcolm (Under contract with Wolfpack)
Which brings us down to the 46 (well, 45 plus Stepan) people left at camp as of today. Of those 46, 20 will be dressed for tonight's preseason opener against the Fucking Devils. Of the remaining 26, many will see action in Philadelphia tomorrow night, after which the Rangers have no further preseason games scheduled until next Monday, in Calgary. So, if I had to guess, I would guess that the next round of cuts will be made after these two games, through which most, but not all, of these guys will see at least some action. Here are the 20 that will be playing tonight:
Players with NHL Contracts (Cap hit is noted)
Forwards (6): Arron Asham ($1m), Brian Boyle ($1.7m), Dominic Moore ($1m), Rick Nash ($7.8m), Darroll Powe ($1,066,667), Brad Richards ($6,666,667)
Defensemen (5): Stu Bickel ($750,000), Michael Del Zotto ($2.55m), Justin Falk ($975,000), Aaron Johnson ($600,000), Marc Staal ($3.975m)
Goalies (1): Henrik Lundqvist ($6.875m)
Players with Two-Way Contracts (NHL cap hit is noted)
Forwards (5): Ryan Bourque ($900,000), Marek Hrivik ($685,000), Chris Kreider ($1.325m), Danny Kristo ($1.3m), Brandon Mashinter ($605,000)
Defensemen (1): John Moore ($965,000)
Goalies (1): Cam Talbot ($562,500)
Unaffiliated Players
Forwards (1): Shawn O'Donnell (Under contract with Wolfpack)
I'll break down the remaining 26 players at camp, the ones you won't be seeing tonight, in a later post, because I've run out of time on this one, and the game is in 40 minutes, and I have to get the hell out of my office. Hockey is back, and life is meaningful again!
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Things to love about the world today
1) This pie chart about football, from the Winnipeg Sun.
2) This goal light, which you hook up to some computer you have already, and you tell it what team you like, and then the goal light goes off whenever they score. Yes, Virginia, you are living in the future, where shit like this is real.
2) This goal light, which you hook up to some computer you have already, and you tell it what team you like, and then the goal light goes off whenever they score. Yes, Virginia, you are living in the future, where shit like this is real.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Why is this team so mediocre?
I said about a week ago that while our first four games didn't really tell enough of a full story to comment on, our first seven likely would at least be the beginning of one. Well, now we're 8 games into a 48-game season (1/6 of the way through), and if we chose to interpret a story based on these 8 games, that story would undeniably be mediocrity. 4 wins, 4 losses, and no free Bettman Points through 8 games have the Rangers tied for 8th out of 15 in the Eastern Conference. That's about as middlin' as you can get, save also having a perfect goal differential of 0 (ours is -3).
Some fans, such as Straw Man 1, will ask, "What happened to the Rangers?" After all, Straw Man 1 will point out, this team won more games than anyone else except the Odious Devils last season, and since then, it added Rick Nash. It is incomprehensible that to Straw Man 1, therefore, that we'd come out of the gate 4-4 this season.
The much more level-headed, sensible Straw Man 2 will note that 8 games is a dang small sample size and that we're coming off of a weird-ass lockout and virtually no training camp, and conclude that everything is crazy-pants right now. The Islanders have a winning record, and the Lightning have a goal differential of goddamn +18 in 8 games, which is just an impossible, wacky, fantasy-land goal differential. So, Straw Man 2 is tired of pointing out, no one should really be putting too much stock in the ridiculously small sample of 8 games that we've played so far.
Now, I like Straw Man 2 quite a bit. He's capable of reaching reasonable conclusions based on data, and he's not interested in writing narratives that don't actually exist based on only a handful of data points. Plus: he understands that, if you're only going to look at one number, it should be goal differential, not win/loss record. I would like to have a beer with Straw Man 2, and I considered making his point here today.
But I'm prepared to offer yet another "explanation" (of a set of facts that, Straw Man 2 reminds us, don't really need much in the way of explanation): the Rangers might just be a mediocre hockey team this season. More to the point, I think we should not at all be surprised if they are.
Yes, the Rangers added Rick Nash in the offseason. And as I've said here time and time again, giving up overpaid Brandon Dubinsky and inconsistent Artem Anisimov to add a monster like Nash was a way good idea. But no one seems willing to realize that this is basically a different team than the one from last season. The moves made yesterday are clearly flails to try to get together a 3rd and 4th line that aren't terrible. And Straw Man 1 is very willing to discuss losses like "the chemistry certain guys used to bring to the locker room." Straw Man 1 isn't blind to the loss of Brandon Prust. But he does still have trouble understanding why the Rangers aren't performing as well as they were last season. And what I want him to understand is that they are; they're just doing it on a bunch of different hockey teams.
Look. I am not suggesting anything earth-shattering. What I am suggesting is the easiest possible thing to understand. It's just that it's not how the conversation is ever framed for some reason. These are different human beings. Yes, the goaltending and defense are basically the same - and as I've said here before, those things are the ones more likely to improve with further play. But let's talk about the 12 forward spots that make up the majority of a hockey team. In the Conference Finals against the Loathsome Devils last season, we played a total of 13 forwards in those 12 spots. Let me remind you who they were: Artem Anisimov, Brian Boyle, Ryan Callahan, Brandon Dubinsky, Ruslan Fedotenko, Marian Gaborik, Carl Hagelin, Chris Kreider, John Mitchell, Brandon Prust, Brad Richards, Mike Rupp, and Derek Stepan.
Pop quiz. How many of those 13 forwards are still Rangers now, going into tonight's rematch against the Godforsaken Devils? Boyle, Callahan, Gaborik, Hagelin, Kreider, Richards, and Stepan. Seven, and that's counting Kreider, who is looking less and less likely to be good enough to deserve a roster spot this season. With Callahan's injury, we could have as few as 5 of them in the lineup tonight. If Kreider sits tonight, 2/3 of the forwards on the ice in white tonight will be guys who were not on that same ice the last time the Rangers were.
So, we can have debates about whether this team is better or worse than it was last season. And those debates should hinge on a comparison between Team 2012 (Anisimov, Dubinsky, Fedotenko, Mitchell, Prust, Rupp) and Team 2013 Right Now (Asham, Halpern, Miller, Nash, Powe, Pyatt). And I think that Straw Man 2's patience will win the day there. But let's all stop being surprised that this team is playing so differently than it did last season, when half of its forwards are literally different people.
Some fans, such as Straw Man 1, will ask, "What happened to the Rangers?" After all, Straw Man 1 will point out, this team won more games than anyone else except the Odious Devils last season, and since then, it added Rick Nash. It is incomprehensible that to Straw Man 1, therefore, that we'd come out of the gate 4-4 this season.
The much more level-headed, sensible Straw Man 2 will note that 8 games is a dang small sample size and that we're coming off of a weird-ass lockout and virtually no training camp, and conclude that everything is crazy-pants right now. The Islanders have a winning record, and the Lightning have a goal differential of goddamn +18 in 8 games, which is just an impossible, wacky, fantasy-land goal differential. So, Straw Man 2 is tired of pointing out, no one should really be putting too much stock in the ridiculously small sample of 8 games that we've played so far.
Now, I like Straw Man 2 quite a bit. He's capable of reaching reasonable conclusions based on data, and he's not interested in writing narratives that don't actually exist based on only a handful of data points. Plus: he understands that, if you're only going to look at one number, it should be goal differential, not win/loss record. I would like to have a beer with Straw Man 2, and I considered making his point here today.
But I'm prepared to offer yet another "explanation" (of a set of facts that, Straw Man 2 reminds us, don't really need much in the way of explanation): the Rangers might just be a mediocre hockey team this season. More to the point, I think we should not at all be surprised if they are.
Yes, the Rangers added Rick Nash in the offseason. And as I've said here time and time again, giving up overpaid Brandon Dubinsky and inconsistent Artem Anisimov to add a monster like Nash was a way good idea. But no one seems willing to realize that this is basically a different team than the one from last season. The moves made yesterday are clearly flails to try to get together a 3rd and 4th line that aren't terrible. And Straw Man 1 is very willing to discuss losses like "the chemistry certain guys used to bring to the locker room." Straw Man 1 isn't blind to the loss of Brandon Prust. But he does still have trouble understanding why the Rangers aren't performing as well as they were last season. And what I want him to understand is that they are; they're just doing it on a bunch of different hockey teams.
Look. I am not suggesting anything earth-shattering. What I am suggesting is the easiest possible thing to understand. It's just that it's not how the conversation is ever framed for some reason. These are different human beings. Yes, the goaltending and defense are basically the same - and as I've said here before, those things are the ones more likely to improve with further play. But let's talk about the 12 forward spots that make up the majority of a hockey team. In the Conference Finals against the Loathsome Devils last season, we played a total of 13 forwards in those 12 spots. Let me remind you who they were: Artem Anisimov, Brian Boyle, Ryan Callahan, Brandon Dubinsky, Ruslan Fedotenko, Marian Gaborik, Carl Hagelin, Chris Kreider, John Mitchell, Brandon Prust, Brad Richards, Mike Rupp, and Derek Stepan.
Pop quiz. How many of those 13 forwards are still Rangers now, going into tonight's rematch against the Godforsaken Devils? Boyle, Callahan, Gaborik, Hagelin, Kreider, Richards, and Stepan. Seven, and that's counting Kreider, who is looking less and less likely to be good enough to deserve a roster spot this season. With Callahan's injury, we could have as few as 5 of them in the lineup tonight. If Kreider sits tonight, 2/3 of the forwards on the ice in white tonight will be guys who were not on that same ice the last time the Rangers were.
So, we can have debates about whether this team is better or worse than it was last season. And those debates should hinge on a comparison between Team 2012 (Anisimov, Dubinsky, Fedotenko, Mitchell, Prust, Rupp) and Team 2013 Right Now (Asham, Halpern, Miller, Nash, Powe, Pyatt). And I think that Straw Man 2's patience will win the day there. But let's all stop being surprised that this team is playing so differently than it did last season, when half of its forwards are literally different people.
Friday, January 25, 2013
A Guy's Guide to a Girl's Guide to Watching the Rangers
Good idea: Open up a section on your slightly popular fan site, Blueshirts United, where fans unaffiliated with the organization can post their own takes on fandom.
Bad idea: Debut that section with an article about how women can cope with their men's love of hockey, called "A Girl's Guide to Watching the Rangers."
The thesis of the article, which was somehow written by a real, live, possibly self-respecting female, is basically: men are obsessed with hockey, but don't worry! You can try to watch with them, sometimes, and this article will tell you how. Enough, sports world. It is 2013. Why the fuck, as a society, do we still have to deal with garbage like this? Also, do you people not remember the whole "While the Men Watch" disaster from not so long ago?
As a Privileged White Male whose two main passions are nerdy shit and sports, I find myself in some very male-dominated worlds. And I find myself frequently embarrassed by the shit I see there. The Internet has a whole goddamn meme about this weird "fake geek girl" construct, where somehow girls who play video games are automatically not as "authentic" as the guys who do. It's a bizarrely self-victimizing idea, wherein nerdy guys complain about not being able to find suitably nerdy girls, while simultaneously lashing out at any girl who comes anywhere near geek culture for not being "nerdy enough." Look at the most popular criticisms of long-time Attack of the Show! host Olivia Munn: they're always about how she was just there to be pretty, how she didn't really "get" games. Or, hell, go read just about anything at all on Reddit (NOTE: do not actually do this; it is depressing).
In the sports world, for better or for worse, the sexism is a lot more angry and a lot less sad. Absolutely every female hockey fan I know -- every single one, from my girlfriend to people I follow on Twitter who have no idea who I am -- has at least one story about being totally disregarded as a fan because of her gender. My sister told me just the other day that she was at the Flying Puck in her Avery jersey, and some dingleberry called her out with "you wear that just because you think he's pretty."
My sister -- obviously -- took him to school, but that's not the point. The point is that absolutely every female hockey fan has to deal with this, pretty fucking constantly. It's unacceptable. Sure, my sister knows far more about hockey, and about Avery's contribution to the Rangers, than Bar Asshole #3, and she shouldn't have to deal with that, but here's the real point: it wouldn't be okay, even if she didn't. Let's say she was just some casual fan in a jersey wandering into the Puck. If some male casual fan wanders in, the reception is "oh, cool, he's on our side, but he doesn't know that much. Whatever, go Rangers! Maybe when he leaves, he'll even like hockey more!" If it's a female, it's "of course she doesn't know that much, she must just like him because he's pretty," the end.
I take my nerddom and my fandom for granted, because I am a Priveleged White Male. I can wear the Triforce on my shirt, and no one will say "I bet he thinks Zelda's the guy." I don't know fuck-all about the Pittsburgh Pirates, but when I wear my Pirates hat, no one calls me out for not knowing my Andrew McCutchen from my Daniel McCutchen. When I tell people I'm a software engineer, no one's words say "oh, cool" while his face says "oh, really?" And because I am not in a position to be discriminated against as such, I am instead in a position to be very fucking embarrassed by my fellow Priveleged White Males.
And so, cue this sexist garbage, the debut of Blueshirts United's fan-written articles, "A Girl's Guide to Watching the Rangers." We'll dive in in a minute, but you should understand that the reason I'm not linking to it is the good news: we all did our jobs and tweeted and commented at the Rangers about how terribly sexist it was, and the article came down about 2 hours after it went up (with no official word about it, and no further reference to the feature on the site).
But here's the good news! Today's hero, Sports Illustrated's Sarah Kwak, Tweeted before it came down "Because if I know the Rangers, that slideshow will be scrubbed from existence and then they'll deny it ever existed, here are screenshots!" And then she took screenshots of every page and posted them. And then the Rangers did absolutely exactly what she said they would. So, I've taken the liberty of painstakingly transcribing this article for you. And I've added my own guide, Just For Guys, explaining how to deal with your lady when she wants to play sports fan.
Understand: I don't mean to vilify this Mirna Mandil character, who wrote this dreck. She is guilty only of having bad taste and writing about it. The New York Rangers are guilty of thinking that this article was in any way appropriate for its fans, and for thinking that, 1 weeks after a 4-month lockout, a pretty good strategy would be to alienate 50% of the population.
And so, without further ado, I give you... A Guy's Guide to a Girl's Guide to Watching the Rangers!
I was recently one of four females in a house packed with about 20 guys watching the game - football, I think.
Man, it sure is annoying when girls come to watch sports, right guys? I mean, most women are so ignorant about sports, they literally cannot identify football.
The men were there for the game, while I was there for the food: deep fried turkey, which quickly turned into deep frying everything in sight. Sure, I could've sat and watched with the men, but I don't care for football, nor do I pretend to. I'm not going to fake an alpha-male-level obsession with a sport because, frankly, that just seems exhausting.
Now, that's what I like to hear! None of this sissy only liking something a little to get in the way of my liking something a lot! If you don't like a sport as much as I do - if you do not literally have an obsession with it - then you're just getting in my way. Good choices so far, Mirna! You sound hot.
That being said, when having either guy friends, brothers, boyfriends, or husbands in your life, watching games in any sport becomes unavoidable.
Men, take note here. Everyone knows all men want to watch sports, and no women do. Obviously. But I want you to notice how accepting Mirna is of that. When you're with women, of course they don't want to watch sports. Just make them! Problem solved!
And if you live in New York and have one of the aforementioned male figures in your life, then chances are you can't avoid their obsession with the Rangers. The fact that every single one of the guys watching this football game was wearing a Rangers jersey is a true testament to the loyalty of a Rangers fan. It's not just a phase. It's not just an obsession. It's a Rangers lifestyle. News of the NHL lockout's end caused as much excitement in the male world as a 70 percent off sale does in a woman's. If you're completely oblivious to what the end of the lockout means, think of it as the premiere of the newest season of "Girls" being delayed by months, and then suddenly, it's announced that it will be coming back but with a lot fewer episodes to make up for lost time.
Guy Tip! Men, if you're like me, you absolutely cannot wrap your meaty head around what your lady means when she says she's excited about a "sale" or a "television show." Fortunately, Mirna has made the translation for me, and other sociopaths who have no idea how to empathize with anyone of the other gender about even the most basic things. Now you know: those things your woman talks about are just like sports!
Have [sic] said all that, this article is an attempt to help you at least understand their obsession, enthusiasm, and passion, and help you hold your own during game nights.
They're expecting you to ask questions, just know when to do it. Carl Hagelin has the puck. The boys are all standing and screaming and you're going to yell "what's happening!?" Nope.
Guys, Mirna's right. It's a huge pain when know-nothings (or, as I call them, ladies) try to ask me questions when I'm watching the game with my all-male group of friends. My strategy? Just ignore them completely! See if it works for you!
You need to sense the tension at certain points in the game and let them do their jumping, screaming, and cheering thing. You can tell if something huge has happened by their reaction, and if you're absolutely lost, wait for the replay. There's always a replay after a major play.
(Autistic) men, this tip works for you, too. You can tell how your lady feels about something by her reaction to it.
Still confused? Wait until a penalty or other whistle to ask. The clock stopped so there's a pause in the game, and at this level you won't need to know why a penalty was called anyway (unless there's a fight, which is pretty self-explanatory). Everything else? Not important in your world... yet.
It's important to make sure your woman doesn't get too informed about the game. After all, we wouldn't want to risk upsetting the natural order of things! So if there are any women in around when you're watching a game, make sure you explain as little as possible. Otherwise, you run the risk of them understanding the game, and then they might start to like it! You might inadvertently create the world's first female sports fan! Be careful!
Get to know the Rangers. I'm not asking you to memorize a yearbook, but after watching a game or two, last names will start to sound familiar: Staal, Callahan, Del Zotto. You'll get the idea. The Rangers' roster is easily available online, and even though knowing a last name won't do much in terms of understanding the game, it will build up your connection when watching future games. You'll be more attuned to a game when you hear a name you recognize.
Get to know goalie Henrik Lundqvist. If New York were to have a new face on every quarter, it would be his. He's broken NHL records. His nickname is "The King." He played "Sweet Child O' Mine" on guitar during a recent episode of "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon." Don't you want him to do well? Don't you want to watch him when he's on the ice? My point exactly.
Now, guys, this advice might seem dangerous at first glance. After all, Mirna is departing from her usual advice of "all women, stay away from sports" and suggesting a reason that women might find the game interesting. And we know that's bad news! But this actually falls into a separate category: player hotness. It's a little nuanced, but I'll break it down for you.
You see, there actually is a situation in which women are allowed to care about sports: when the player or players are sufficiently attractive. You see, if we let them stay interested in the team's looks, but not in what they actually do (you can even let them know Hank has broken records if you don't let them know which ones!), we can appear to be sharing with them, while actually marginalizing them even further! And the best part is: they'll appreciate it too! They get to stare at something pretty, and they're more likely to keep their traps shut while the boys watch the game! It's win-win.
Congratulations. You've officially graduated level one of what to expect when Ranger fans are expecting. Before I wrote this article, I gave all the guys I spoke with the option of saying, 'I don't want her watching the game with me. It's my sport, leave it alone.' Not a single one of them took it.
Guys, I'm disappointed in you.
Don't be afraid to ask questions, but ask questions they'll enjoy answering. Things like who their favorite player is, or who their biggest rival is. If you have a couple hours of free time, go ahead and ask about the famous Potvin chant. You'll certainly be in for a great story.
Careful with this one. While Mirna's obviously right that it takes hours to explain that Dennis Potvin broke Ulf Nilsson's ankle, this is a great example of something that actually makes hockey interesting. If you tell this story too well, you run the risk of making a casual fan -- worse, a woman -- think that hockey might be fun. We can't have that.
If you feel too forced and uninterested, at least know the Rangers' schedule so you can schedule a girl's [sic] night for those times. Oh, and one last thing: don't give the guys and [sic] grief for their playoff beards. Google it. You'll thank me later.
Yes! This is a great suggestion, men: a ladies' night that takes place during the game will get her out of your hair for sure. Some teams, like the St. Louis Blues, seem to think that "Ladies Night Out" for a hockey game means the women all going to the game together. But the New York Rangers know better. Schedule a ladies' night for the next Ranger game - it's a sure-fire way to keep them away!
Fin
As I finished writing this, my girlfriend called in from the other room that she finally figured out what bothered her most about this insulting disaster is that it came out of New York. New York, she explained, is supposed to be where shit like this doesn't come from. When the rest of the country is spewing hate speech, New York City is where the diversity goes to thrive, where people don't judge you based on your skin color, sexual preference, or gender.
The Rangers are supposed to be New York's team. Today, they did an embarrassing job of representing their city. Meanwhile, at least two of those female Ranger fans I follow on Twitter who have no idea who I am Tweeted "Go Islanders." The New York Rangers owe us, as fans, a bigger apology than this disgraceful backpedaling.
Bad idea: Debut that section with an article about how women can cope with their men's love of hockey, called "A Girl's Guide to Watching the Rangers."
The thesis of the article, which was somehow written by a real, live, possibly self-respecting female, is basically: men are obsessed with hockey, but don't worry! You can try to watch with them, sometimes, and this article will tell you how. Enough, sports world. It is 2013. Why the fuck, as a society, do we still have to deal with garbage like this? Also, do you people not remember the whole "While the Men Watch" disaster from not so long ago?
As a Privileged White Male whose two main passions are nerdy shit and sports, I find myself in some very male-dominated worlds. And I find myself frequently embarrassed by the shit I see there. The Internet has a whole goddamn meme about this weird "fake geek girl" construct, where somehow girls who play video games are automatically not as "authentic" as the guys who do. It's a bizarrely self-victimizing idea, wherein nerdy guys complain about not being able to find suitably nerdy girls, while simultaneously lashing out at any girl who comes anywhere near geek culture for not being "nerdy enough." Look at the most popular criticisms of long-time Attack of the Show! host Olivia Munn: they're always about how she was just there to be pretty, how she didn't really "get" games. Or, hell, go read just about anything at all on Reddit (NOTE: do not actually do this; it is depressing).
In the sports world, for better or for worse, the sexism is a lot more angry and a lot less sad. Absolutely every female hockey fan I know -- every single one, from my girlfriend to people I follow on Twitter who have no idea who I am -- has at least one story about being totally disregarded as a fan because of her gender. My sister told me just the other day that she was at the Flying Puck in her Avery jersey, and some dingleberry called her out with "you wear that just because you think he's pretty."
My sister -- obviously -- took him to school, but that's not the point. The point is that absolutely every female hockey fan has to deal with this, pretty fucking constantly. It's unacceptable. Sure, my sister knows far more about hockey, and about Avery's contribution to the Rangers, than Bar Asshole #3, and she shouldn't have to deal with that, but here's the real point: it wouldn't be okay, even if she didn't. Let's say she was just some casual fan in a jersey wandering into the Puck. If some male casual fan wanders in, the reception is "oh, cool, he's on our side, but he doesn't know that much. Whatever, go Rangers! Maybe when he leaves, he'll even like hockey more!" If it's a female, it's "of course she doesn't know that much, she must just like him because he's pretty," the end.
I take my nerddom and my fandom for granted, because I am a Priveleged White Male. I can wear the Triforce on my shirt, and no one will say "I bet he thinks Zelda's the guy." I don't know fuck-all about the Pittsburgh Pirates, but when I wear my Pirates hat, no one calls me out for not knowing my Andrew McCutchen from my Daniel McCutchen. When I tell people I'm a software engineer, no one's words say "oh, cool" while his face says "oh, really?" And because I am not in a position to be discriminated against as such, I am instead in a position to be very fucking embarrassed by my fellow Priveleged White Males.
And so, cue this sexist garbage, the debut of Blueshirts United's fan-written articles, "A Girl's Guide to Watching the Rangers." We'll dive in in a minute, but you should understand that the reason I'm not linking to it is the good news: we all did our jobs and tweeted and commented at the Rangers about how terribly sexist it was, and the article came down about 2 hours after it went up (with no official word about it, and no further reference to the feature on the site).
But here's the good news! Today's hero, Sports Illustrated's Sarah Kwak, Tweeted before it came down "Because if I know the Rangers, that slideshow will be scrubbed from existence and then they'll deny it ever existed, here are screenshots!" And then she took screenshots of every page and posted them. And then the Rangers did absolutely exactly what she said they would. So, I've taken the liberty of painstakingly transcribing this article for you. And I've added my own guide, Just For Guys, explaining how to deal with your lady when she wants to play sports fan.
Understand: I don't mean to vilify this Mirna Mandil character, who wrote this dreck. She is guilty only of having bad taste and writing about it. The New York Rangers are guilty of thinking that this article was in any way appropriate for its fans, and for thinking that, 1 weeks after a 4-month lockout, a pretty good strategy would be to alienate 50% of the population.
And so, without further ado, I give you... A Guy's Guide to a Girl's Guide to Watching the Rangers!
I was recently one of four females in a house packed with about 20 guys watching the game - football, I think.
Man, it sure is annoying when girls come to watch sports, right guys? I mean, most women are so ignorant about sports, they literally cannot identify football.
The men were there for the game, while I was there for the food: deep fried turkey, which quickly turned into deep frying everything in sight. Sure, I could've sat and watched with the men, but I don't care for football, nor do I pretend to. I'm not going to fake an alpha-male-level obsession with a sport because, frankly, that just seems exhausting.
Now, that's what I like to hear! None of this sissy only liking something a little to get in the way of my liking something a lot! If you don't like a sport as much as I do - if you do not literally have an obsession with it - then you're just getting in my way. Good choices so far, Mirna! You sound hot.
That being said, when having either guy friends, brothers, boyfriends, or husbands in your life, watching games in any sport becomes unavoidable.
Men, take note here. Everyone knows all men want to watch sports, and no women do. Obviously. But I want you to notice how accepting Mirna is of that. When you're with women, of course they don't want to watch sports. Just make them! Problem solved!
And if you live in New York and have one of the aforementioned male figures in your life, then chances are you can't avoid their obsession with the Rangers. The fact that every single one of the guys watching this football game was wearing a Rangers jersey is a true testament to the loyalty of a Rangers fan. It's not just a phase. It's not just an obsession. It's a Rangers lifestyle. News of the NHL lockout's end caused as much excitement in the male world as a 70 percent off sale does in a woman's. If you're completely oblivious to what the end of the lockout means, think of it as the premiere of the newest season of "Girls" being delayed by months, and then suddenly, it's announced that it will be coming back but with a lot fewer episodes to make up for lost time.
Guy Tip! Men, if you're like me, you absolutely cannot wrap your meaty head around what your lady means when she says she's excited about a "sale" or a "television show." Fortunately, Mirna has made the translation for me, and other sociopaths who have no idea how to empathize with anyone of the other gender about even the most basic things. Now you know: those things your woman talks about are just like sports!
Have [sic] said all that, this article is an attempt to help you at least understand their obsession, enthusiasm, and passion, and help you hold your own during game nights.
They're expecting you to ask questions, just know when to do it. Carl Hagelin has the puck. The boys are all standing and screaming and you're going to yell "what's happening!?" Nope.
Guys, Mirna's right. It's a huge pain when know-nothings (or, as I call them, ladies) try to ask me questions when I'm watching the game with my all-male group of friends. My strategy? Just ignore them completely! See if it works for you!
You need to sense the tension at certain points in the game and let them do their jumping, screaming, and cheering thing. You can tell if something huge has happened by their reaction, and if you're absolutely lost, wait for the replay. There's always a replay after a major play.
(Autistic) men, this tip works for you, too. You can tell how your lady feels about something by her reaction to it.
Still confused? Wait until a penalty or other whistle to ask. The clock stopped so there's a pause in the game, and at this level you won't need to know why a penalty was called anyway (unless there's a fight, which is pretty self-explanatory). Everything else? Not important in your world... yet.
It's important to make sure your woman doesn't get too informed about the game. After all, we wouldn't want to risk upsetting the natural order of things! So if there are any women in around when you're watching a game, make sure you explain as little as possible. Otherwise, you run the risk of them understanding the game, and then they might start to like it! You might inadvertently create the world's first female sports fan! Be careful!
Get to know the Rangers. I'm not asking you to memorize a yearbook, but after watching a game or two, last names will start to sound familiar: Staal, Callahan, Del Zotto. You'll get the idea. The Rangers' roster is easily available online, and even though knowing a last name won't do much in terms of understanding the game, it will build up your connection when watching future games. You'll be more attuned to a game when you hear a name you recognize.
Get to know goalie Henrik Lundqvist. If New York were to have a new face on every quarter, it would be his. He's broken NHL records. His nickname is "The King." He played "Sweet Child O' Mine" on guitar during a recent episode of "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon." Don't you want him to do well? Don't you want to watch him when he's on the ice? My point exactly.
Now, guys, this advice might seem dangerous at first glance. After all, Mirna is departing from her usual advice of "all women, stay away from sports" and suggesting a reason that women might find the game interesting. And we know that's bad news! But this actually falls into a separate category: player hotness. It's a little nuanced, but I'll break it down for you.
You see, there actually is a situation in which women are allowed to care about sports: when the player or players are sufficiently attractive. You see, if we let them stay interested in the team's looks, but not in what they actually do (you can even let them know Hank has broken records if you don't let them know which ones!), we can appear to be sharing with them, while actually marginalizing them even further! And the best part is: they'll appreciate it too! They get to stare at something pretty, and they're more likely to keep their traps shut while the boys watch the game! It's win-win.
Congratulations. You've officially graduated level one of what to expect when Ranger fans are expecting. Before I wrote this article, I gave all the guys I spoke with the option of saying, 'I don't want her watching the game with me. It's my sport, leave it alone.' Not a single one of them took it.
Guys, I'm disappointed in you.
Don't be afraid to ask questions, but ask questions they'll enjoy answering. Things like who their favorite player is, or who their biggest rival is. If you have a couple hours of free time, go ahead and ask about the famous Potvin chant. You'll certainly be in for a great story.
Careful with this one. While Mirna's obviously right that it takes hours to explain that Dennis Potvin broke Ulf Nilsson's ankle, this is a great example of something that actually makes hockey interesting. If you tell this story too well, you run the risk of making a casual fan -- worse, a woman -- think that hockey might be fun. We can't have that.
If you feel too forced and uninterested, at least know the Rangers' schedule so you can schedule a girl's [sic] night for those times. Oh, and one last thing: don't give the guys and [sic] grief for their playoff beards. Google it. You'll thank me later.
Yes! This is a great suggestion, men: a ladies' night that takes place during the game will get her out of your hair for sure. Some teams, like the St. Louis Blues, seem to think that "Ladies Night Out" for a hockey game means the women all going to the game together. But the New York Rangers know better. Schedule a ladies' night for the next Ranger game - it's a sure-fire way to keep them away!
Fin
As I finished writing this, my girlfriend called in from the other room that she finally figured out what bothered her most about this insulting disaster is that it came out of New York. New York, she explained, is supposed to be where shit like this doesn't come from. When the rest of the country is spewing hate speech, New York City is where the diversity goes to thrive, where people don't judge you based on your skin color, sexual preference, or gender.
The Rangers are supposed to be New York's team. Today, they did an embarrassing job of representing their city. Meanwhile, at least two of those female Ranger fans I follow on Twitter who have no idea who I am Tweeted "Go Islanders." The New York Rangers owe us, as fans, a bigger apology than this disgraceful backpedaling.
Everyone is terrible, John Tortorella is a sociopath, The End
OK, so here are a couple of things I wanted to talk about, but then Puck Daddy wrote about them this morning, so you should just go read that instead.
First, following up on my feelings about the Asham-Glass nonsense is Ryan Lambert's piece on opening draw fights. Lambert rightly blames the away team's coach for starting the mess, rightly calls out Torts for placing exactly the wrong blame, and rightly claims that these kinds of fights never actually affect the game. He also says a bunch of other right things (and then one wrong thing about automatic penalties). So go read that.
Second, this jingoistic bullshit about Nail Yakupov's goal celebration is handled perfectly by Greg Wyshynski here. Yakupov scored a crazy-exciting goal last night and celebrated it in a crazy-exciting way. But, he's Russian, not Canadian, so everyone said shit like "act like you've scored before" and "why wasn't he celebrating nearer to his teammates" and other thinly-veiled "I don't like when Europeans are good at hockey" shit. Wyshynski says everything correct about this issue, the summary of which is "it's probably actually pretty good for the NHL if hockey is portrayed as a fun thing," so go read that, too.
So what does that leave for me to talk about? Well, there's always how the Rangers look terrible, yeah? Let's do that. This team has played one good period out of 12 now, and I don't have the time and you don't have the patience for me to talk about all the things I'm angry about. So let's cherry-pick a couple.
One thing I'm angry about: Salary math. I know I've ranted about this before, but Michael Del Zotto is making too much money. Even in a team-wide dogshit performance like last night, he managed to make more than a couple of noticeable gaffes that led to Lundqvist bailing him out. And while eating up 30 perfectly good seconds of a 5-on-3 by futzing around with the puck is something I would normally praise in a defenseman, I'm not so hot on it when he's doing it as the point man on his own team's 5-on-3.
Here's the bottom line, people. I don't mean to pick just on him, as the whole team is sucking right now, but it's a numbers game. Michael Del Zotto is eating up $2.55 million to suck. Arron Asham is eating $1 million to do the same. Matt Gilroy is wearing a suit and tie in a box upstairs. Brandon Prust is making $2.5 million in Montréal, Ruslan Fedotenko is making $1.75 million in Philadelphia, John Mitchell is making $1.1 million in Colorado, and Ranger fans are wondering where all our depth went.
Look, giving up Dubinsky and Anisimov definitely hurt this team's core. But we did it to get back real value, in Rick Nash. Prust, Fedotenko, and Mitchell all left for better contracts than we were willing to offer, so we could spend that money elsewhere. And while I'm not suggesting we should have spent $5.35 million to wrap up all three of those guys, we absolutely could have let Del Zotto walk, not signed Arron Asham, and put Gilroy in Del Zotto's spot. Gilroy would perform almost as well as DZ, if not better, and the $3.55 million saved could have kept us, at least, Brandon Prust and John Mitchell.
Or does anyone think this team wouldn't be obviously and immediately better if we swapped Del Zotto and Asham for Gilroy, Prust, and Mitchell?
Another thing I'm angry about: The coach is perpetually angry about the wrong things. We already covered yesterday how Arron Asham did something meaningless and then Torts got mad that everyone else thought it was meaningless. But then, in last night's post-game presser, the man of few words offered these choice ones: "Our top line simply didn't play well."
So, let me summarize this shit in a run-on sentence, coach. Hold on tight, it's kinda dense. One night after your top 5 forwards averaged 21:28 (which you said was because you weren't yet comfortable rolling 4 lines) and won the game all by themselves, combining for 6 points and a +7 rating on the Rangers' 4 goals and for 19 of the Rangers' 33 shots, you gave those same 5 guys an even higher average of 21:39 (more ice time than half your defensemen got), and the team looked exhausted and was beaten physically and in every footrace, and despite all that, those 5 guys still netted a point on the Rangers' only goal and were responsible for 10 of their 19 shots, and you think the problem is that your top guys didn't play well enough?
Do I live in a different reality than the coach does? This isn't just having a wrong opinion, this is downright lunacy. It is maniacal to think this. If you draw this conclusion from these facts, you are going to fail your SATs. Even if you weren't the guy who is directly responsible for everyone's ice time, this shit would stupefy a Vulcan. How are you going to correct this team's course if you think things this batty?
Too much anger, not enough time. Tomorrow night, Leafs. Two days later, Flyers again. Two days after that, Pens again. All 3 are at home. Our first four games may not really tell a story yet, but these 7 together sure will. So, let's see how those go.
First, following up on my feelings about the Asham-Glass nonsense is Ryan Lambert's piece on opening draw fights. Lambert rightly blames the away team's coach for starting the mess, rightly calls out Torts for placing exactly the wrong blame, and rightly claims that these kinds of fights never actually affect the game. He also says a bunch of other right things (and then one wrong thing about automatic penalties). So go read that.
Second, this jingoistic bullshit about Nail Yakupov's goal celebration is handled perfectly by Greg Wyshynski here. Yakupov scored a crazy-exciting goal last night and celebrated it in a crazy-exciting way. But, he's Russian, not Canadian, so everyone said shit like "act like you've scored before" and "why wasn't he celebrating nearer to his teammates" and other thinly-veiled "I don't like when Europeans are good at hockey" shit. Wyshynski says everything correct about this issue, the summary of which is "it's probably actually pretty good for the NHL if hockey is portrayed as a fun thing," so go read that, too.
So what does that leave for me to talk about? Well, there's always how the Rangers look terrible, yeah? Let's do that. This team has played one good period out of 12 now, and I don't have the time and you don't have the patience for me to talk about all the things I'm angry about. So let's cherry-pick a couple.
One thing I'm angry about: Salary math. I know I've ranted about this before, but Michael Del Zotto is making too much money. Even in a team-wide dogshit performance like last night, he managed to make more than a couple of noticeable gaffes that led to Lundqvist bailing him out. And while eating up 30 perfectly good seconds of a 5-on-3 by futzing around with the puck is something I would normally praise in a defenseman, I'm not so hot on it when he's doing it as the point man on his own team's 5-on-3.
Here's the bottom line, people. I don't mean to pick just on him, as the whole team is sucking right now, but it's a numbers game. Michael Del Zotto is eating up $2.55 million to suck. Arron Asham is eating $1 million to do the same. Matt Gilroy is wearing a suit and tie in a box upstairs. Brandon Prust is making $2.5 million in Montréal, Ruslan Fedotenko is making $1.75 million in Philadelphia, John Mitchell is making $1.1 million in Colorado, and Ranger fans are wondering where all our depth went.
Look, giving up Dubinsky and Anisimov definitely hurt this team's core. But we did it to get back real value, in Rick Nash. Prust, Fedotenko, and Mitchell all left for better contracts than we were willing to offer, so we could spend that money elsewhere. And while I'm not suggesting we should have spent $5.35 million to wrap up all three of those guys, we absolutely could have let Del Zotto walk, not signed Arron Asham, and put Gilroy in Del Zotto's spot. Gilroy would perform almost as well as DZ, if not better, and the $3.55 million saved could have kept us, at least, Brandon Prust and John Mitchell.
Or does anyone think this team wouldn't be obviously and immediately better if we swapped Del Zotto and Asham for Gilroy, Prust, and Mitchell?
Another thing I'm angry about: The coach is perpetually angry about the wrong things. We already covered yesterday how Arron Asham did something meaningless and then Torts got mad that everyone else thought it was meaningless. But then, in last night's post-game presser, the man of few words offered these choice ones: "Our top line simply didn't play well."
So, let me summarize this shit in a run-on sentence, coach. Hold on tight, it's kinda dense. One night after your top 5 forwards averaged 21:28 (which you said was because you weren't yet comfortable rolling 4 lines) and won the game all by themselves, combining for 6 points and a +7 rating on the Rangers' 4 goals and for 19 of the Rangers' 33 shots, you gave those same 5 guys an even higher average of 21:39 (more ice time than half your defensemen got), and the team looked exhausted and was beaten physically and in every footrace, and despite all that, those 5 guys still netted a point on the Rangers' only goal and were responsible for 10 of their 19 shots, and you think the problem is that your top guys didn't play well enough?
Do I live in a different reality than the coach does? This isn't just having a wrong opinion, this is downright lunacy. It is maniacal to think this. If you draw this conclusion from these facts, you are going to fail your SATs. Even if you weren't the guy who is directly responsible for everyone's ice time, this shit would stupefy a Vulcan. How are you going to correct this team's course if you think things this batty?
Too much anger, not enough time. Tomorrow night, Leafs. Two days later, Flyers again. Two days after that, Pens again. All 3 are at home. Our first four games may not really tell a story yet, but these 7 together sure will. So, let's see how those go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)