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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.