If what I just read in the NY Post is really true, it means a few things.
I'm not talking about the reflection on the Rangers cap hit and what it means monetarily. Surely that is important and what most will focus on. But I'm talking about what it truly means...
It means Markus Naslund is a professional. He realizes that playing hockey is his job. He saw what some others saw: that he was not at the top of his game, not the player he was six or seven years ago. He realized, especially given a coaching change, that he was not going to be able to play a go-go-go style anymore, and he said he was done.
Now to me, and I've said so before, Markus Naslund has nothing to be ashamed of here this season. I realize many thought he gave half efforts in the tail end of the season and looked a step behind. Well, that seems like something Naslund himself is not denying, here. And he did take a bunch of hooking/holding penalties in the later stages that made a guy losing a step look like he was losing a lot more. I'm blaming that on frustration, perhaps personal and on the whole of the team.
But what I saw, what I am focusing on, is a guy that scored goals when the rest of the team, save a few, didn't. A guy that, when a disappointing season was all said and done, had still scored a team-high 24 goals. A guy that, at 35, appeared in all 82 games and all 7 playoff games.
He scored some timely goals. He was the one skating over to the refs to argue when one of his teammates got an unfair call - more than Gomez and more than Drury. He was the one that had - when he used them - more nifty shots than more than half his teammates. He was the one that sounded genuine in the post-game, in victory and in defeat.
Is that what we - but really Glen - wanted when he was signed - perhaps on some level to replace Jaromir Jagr, as if that man could ever be replaced - at the start of this season? No. But, to me, he really did all he could do given what he had in this team, his teammates, and where he was in his career.
That all being established, last week, he apparently said, I'm done. I cannot help my team the way I want to. I don't want them to be pulled down for me, a guy who cannot do what he was brought on to do.
Now do you think for one second that Gomez, Drury, Redden, et all, would ever think of doing the same thing?
Really?
I understand Naslund is at the end of a career, and that makes a difference; I am not blind to that. But it's also called humility, it's also called selflessness. And it's also called pride.
If Naslund was proud of what the season had turned out to be, he'd have been back. Instead, because he knew he was once better and he perhaps knows how this team was - and still is despite his gracious action - painted into a corner financially, and he wanted better for his teammates.
"Proud and classy" says Larry Brooks, of Markus Naslund. I always admired Naslund in Vancouver, and perhaps got a taste of what a great player he was and could be in my years watching that team. He commented publicly how he learned so much when Mark Messier came to Vancouver from 1998-2000, about the game and about how to lead. Naslund, for the record, had his best career seasons in those years post-Messier's departure from the Canucks, perhaps putting to use all he had learned from one of the league's greatest.
Look, I'm guilty here. Maybe I, too, was jaded into thinking we'd get 2002 Naslund here to play for the Rangers. Maybe, given everything I saw happening to this team, I needed to believe that.
The important difference though is Markus Naslund's extreme willingness to admit that the Naslund of 2002 is gone and to make the decision to take the difficult but prideful way out.
Again, Markus Naslund has nothing to be ashamed of here. I still think he was one of the Rangers that, despite limited means, tried the hardest here. I think it was a case, as Larry said, where "the heart and head were willing," but the rest of him simply could not keep up with that.
Still, I'd rather have a guy here on my team that had his heart and his head in the right place, than a guy that is missing one, the other, or both.
Argue all you want that he could have done more, that he was a disappointment, that he should have never been here. Fine. It sounds like Markus agrees to a point that he was not happy with the results either. But do not argue that while this team lacked for some veterans to look up to, some "leader" to follow, that Markus was not trying to be that guy to the best of his ability - by being professional, being humble, and by showing the example of having been there before.
If this is indeed the end for #91, I will not regret his having come play here in New York for this season and I will certainly not regret his being chosen to wear the "A" on his sweater.
Showing posts with label NY Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NY Post. Show all posts
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Avery Versus The World. . .
Got back from the Rangers/Devils game a little while ago. And I must say, that was certainly an exciting evening. It lived up to the hype, although perhaps not for the reasons most of us originally thought.
For it wasn't Avery and Brodeur.
It was Avery and Clarkson. Avery and, umm, Holik, Shanahan, Zajac, White, Langenbrunner, Rupp. . .need me to continue?
It seemed Avery was more in the heads of the Devils players than they were in his. And that is where Sean has been effective against them and where he can be effective against them going forward.
If I were New Jersey, for that reason alone, I would not want to face New York in the playoffs.
Sean can provide a decided edge. He did again tonight.
If there was a moment that disappointed me it was during the Clarkson/Avery scuffle, and not for Sean. I was not disappointed in Sean. I was disappointed with the refs, I guess much in the same way many Rangers fans have been upset for a while now.
There is no denying that Sean Avery is being looked at differently while he's on the ice by the officials.
No doubt in my mind.
If the media, the other coaches, the other players, if they are all looking at him differently, what makes us think the referees are going to be any different.
The problem with that - the officials are supposed to be impartial. It's their job. But I guess we really don't have to go into a long and drawn out conversation on the overall state of officiating in the league now do we?
But it disapointed me. And if it continues, which I am afraid it might, it will continue to disappoint me.
Sean Avery did all that was asked of him and I personally think has done a very, very good job of holding himself in check since his return to the league earlier this month.
Does that mean he's been a perfect angel?
Please, I wouldn't recognize or want Sean Avery on my team if he were that.
But he's done nothing to warrant any major retribution. AND, he has not gotten the benefit of any calls when something is done to him. And it's the latter that is most disturbing. It is a blatant slap in the face to Sean, and his team. And it takes credibility away from a league that sometimes walks a very fine line in that departmnet already.
If Sean does something warranting a penalty - send him to the box. He'll go. But if someone does something to Sean - they should be sent on that same path. Anything less, is a detriment to the sport of hockey.
Oh, wait, you've heard that one before.
Players that physically hurt their brothers in this league are given endless chances and infinite patience, sometimes to the degree that almost that confounds understanding.
And yet a guy that did nothing, really, except draw some negative attention to a minor moment of bad judgement and make himself look like a moron in the process - he has done the unforgiveable. He can't catch a break.
That is a shame.
And an embarassment.
I think we all as Rangers fans have one plea - let Sean be viewed the same as any player in this league. Let that endless and infinite patience fall on someone that has and can do good for this league on the ice and in the press. Let him play.
Putting him in this no-win situation is just asking for him to eventually snap. Not this year, but if it continues. Maybe that's what they all want. For the great voice to be right. That Avery is not a player in this league and that he's nothing more than a side show to it.
I hope with all I have that they don't get that wish, if that is what they are trying so desperately to do, and I hope that Sean Avery has the will inside him to withstand all that is unfairly being thrown at him.
The league has a lot of villians to contend with. Like it or not, Sean Avery is not one of them.
Other game notes:
Larry Brooks was quoted in today's NY Post as saying:
"But to believe that Avery-Brodeur is somehow just a sideshow is missing the point, which, quite simply, is that Avery the Ranger is as singularly responsible for tilting the rivalry Manhattan's way as anyone since Mark Messier."
I will agree, to the extent that he is one of the two people. Applaud Sean Avery for being a MAJOR reason that New York has once again become a respectible rival to the Devils once again. For he is. He truly, truly is. And not for the antics, if you will. But because he is, and I continue to believe in this, a legit hockey player.
BUT...in applauding Avery, I don't think we should forget about the other guy, Henrik Lundqvist. Including tonight Hank is 14-5-4 versus New Jersey and 14-2-4 against Brodeur. (*I want to confirm those numbers*). And he has an incredible GAA too.
That is domination right there. And - and! - he did it last year when it counted. In the playoffs.
So as much as the world wants to focus on Avery and his play against New Jersey - again, rightfully so - do not lose track of the fact that Hank himself plays masterfully against New Jersey and deserves applause as well.
It is so nice after being on the bad side of a one sided rivalry for seven years, to finally be on an upswing.
Kudos Avery. Kudos Hank.
Lastly, Naslund, in what I saw of him, looked like a much more determined man tonight. It might be a flash in the pan, but it's something to keep an eye on going forward as the season closes out.
Around the League:
Just have to mention this. On my way home I listeded to a bit of Coyotes/Stars and in the first intermission they did a 'Hot Stove Report" of sorts. Now, Dave Strader was on Versus with the Dallas Stars guy, so Darren Pang jumped to Dallas TV. This was the Coyotes radio broadcast team; forgive me for missing names here. The whole segment began and ended with the song "love the one you're with." (Kinda a play on the fact that so many regular broadcast partners were in different places tonight). Anyway, a question is asked and answered by [fill in the blank.]. The announcer then goes, "okay, Panger, you got sloppy seconds."
Yes, you read me right. On air, professional broadcasters used the term that almost had Sean Avery banned from this very league!
Now I am not stupid (at least I try very hard not to be). Granted Avery's context was different and his connotation might have very well been of the negative variety. But who has not - seriously, folks - used the term like the broadcasters did above?
Because, in all honesty here - which I do preach at NHTP - my first thought any time I hear sloppy seconds, and this includes the time Avery said it, is not anything sexual or negative.
I'm thinking the guys above, they probably were not thinking along those lines either.If we are being truly honest here.
Yotes/Stars Notes:
Kudos from the broadcast crew (whose names I will find tomorrow) for the reunited Prucha-Lombardi-Upshall line that combined for a goal - (Just checked the score) - 2 goals so far on the night. It seems the three boys can play in almost any combination with their teammates and they all bring that energy and tenaciousness. That's the word I am going to use to describe the Coyotes in my three weeks watching them. Tenacious. On the puck, on the boards. Tenacious. They might not score a lot(although they are againt Tobias Stephan tonight) yet, but they are punishing other teams with their work ethic and consistent pressure. The goals, I believe, will come. And they did tonight. 5-3 in the 3rd.
**Thanks for reading. Goodnight folks.**
On edit: Prucha just got game winning goal in OT! More tomorrow. :) But to see the jump in his step. Well, well deserved.
For it wasn't Avery and Brodeur.
It was Avery and Clarkson. Avery and, umm, Holik, Shanahan, Zajac, White, Langenbrunner, Rupp. . .need me to continue?
It seemed Avery was more in the heads of the Devils players than they were in his. And that is where Sean has been effective against them and where he can be effective against them going forward.
If I were New Jersey, for that reason alone, I would not want to face New York in the playoffs.
Sean can provide a decided edge. He did again tonight.
If there was a moment that disappointed me it was during the Clarkson/Avery scuffle, and not for Sean. I was not disappointed in Sean. I was disappointed with the refs, I guess much in the same way many Rangers fans have been upset for a while now.
There is no denying that Sean Avery is being looked at differently while he's on the ice by the officials.
No doubt in my mind.
If the media, the other coaches, the other players, if they are all looking at him differently, what makes us think the referees are going to be any different.
The problem with that - the officials are supposed to be impartial. It's their job. But I guess we really don't have to go into a long and drawn out conversation on the overall state of officiating in the league now do we?
But it disapointed me. And if it continues, which I am afraid it might, it will continue to disappoint me.
Sean Avery did all that was asked of him and I personally think has done a very, very good job of holding himself in check since his return to the league earlier this month.
Does that mean he's been a perfect angel?
Please, I wouldn't recognize or want Sean Avery on my team if he were that.
But he's done nothing to warrant any major retribution. AND, he has not gotten the benefit of any calls when something is done to him. And it's the latter that is most disturbing. It is a blatant slap in the face to Sean, and his team. And it takes credibility away from a league that sometimes walks a very fine line in that departmnet already.
If Sean does something warranting a penalty - send him to the box. He'll go. But if someone does something to Sean - they should be sent on that same path. Anything less, is a detriment to the sport of hockey.
Oh, wait, you've heard that one before.
Players that physically hurt their brothers in this league are given endless chances and infinite patience, sometimes to the degree that almost that confounds understanding.
And yet a guy that did nothing, really, except draw some negative attention to a minor moment of bad judgement and make himself look like a moron in the process - he has done the unforgiveable. He can't catch a break.
That is a shame.
And an embarassment.
I think we all as Rangers fans have one plea - let Sean be viewed the same as any player in this league. Let that endless and infinite patience fall on someone that has and can do good for this league on the ice and in the press. Let him play.
Putting him in this no-win situation is just asking for him to eventually snap. Not this year, but if it continues. Maybe that's what they all want. For the great voice to be right. That Avery is not a player in this league and that he's nothing more than a side show to it.
I hope with all I have that they don't get that wish, if that is what they are trying so desperately to do, and I hope that Sean Avery has the will inside him to withstand all that is unfairly being thrown at him.
The league has a lot of villians to contend with. Like it or not, Sean Avery is not one of them.
Other game notes:
Larry Brooks was quoted in today's NY Post as saying:
"But to believe that Avery-Brodeur is somehow just a sideshow is missing the point, which, quite simply, is that Avery the Ranger is as singularly responsible for tilting the rivalry Manhattan's way as anyone since Mark Messier."
I will agree, to the extent that he is one of the two people. Applaud Sean Avery for being a MAJOR reason that New York has once again become a respectible rival to the Devils once again. For he is. He truly, truly is. And not for the antics, if you will. But because he is, and I continue to believe in this, a legit hockey player.
BUT...in applauding Avery, I don't think we should forget about the other guy, Henrik Lundqvist. Including tonight Hank is 14-5-4 versus New Jersey and 14-2-4 against Brodeur. (*I want to confirm those numbers*). And he has an incredible GAA too.
That is domination right there. And - and! - he did it last year when it counted. In the playoffs.
So as much as the world wants to focus on Avery and his play against New Jersey - again, rightfully so - do not lose track of the fact that Hank himself plays masterfully against New Jersey and deserves applause as well.
It is so nice after being on the bad side of a one sided rivalry for seven years, to finally be on an upswing.
Kudos Avery. Kudos Hank.
Lastly, Naslund, in what I saw of him, looked like a much more determined man tonight. It might be a flash in the pan, but it's something to keep an eye on going forward as the season closes out.
Around the League:
Just have to mention this. On my way home I listeded to a bit of Coyotes/Stars and in the first intermission they did a 'Hot Stove Report" of sorts. Now, Dave Strader was on Versus with the Dallas Stars guy, so Darren Pang jumped to Dallas TV. This was the Coyotes radio broadcast team; forgive me for missing names here. The whole segment began and ended with the song "love the one you're with." (Kinda a play on the fact that so many regular broadcast partners were in different places tonight). Anyway, a question is asked and answered by [fill in the blank.]. The announcer then goes, "okay, Panger, you got sloppy seconds."
Yes, you read me right. On air, professional broadcasters used the term that almost had Sean Avery banned from this very league!
Now I am not stupid (at least I try very hard not to be). Granted Avery's context was different and his connotation might have very well been of the negative variety. But who has not - seriously, folks - used the term like the broadcasters did above?
Because, in all honesty here - which I do preach at NHTP - my first thought any time I hear sloppy seconds, and this includes the time Avery said it, is not anything sexual or negative.
I'm thinking the guys above, they probably were not thinking along those lines either.If we are being truly honest here.
Yotes/Stars Notes:
Kudos from the broadcast crew (whose names I will find tomorrow) for the reunited Prucha-Lombardi-Upshall line that combined for a goal - (Just checked the score) - 2 goals so far on the night. It seems the three boys can play in almost any combination with their teammates and they all bring that energy and tenaciousness. That's the word I am going to use to describe the Coyotes in my three weeks watching them. Tenacious. On the puck, on the boards. Tenacious. They might not score a lot(although they are againt Tobias Stephan tonight) yet, but they are punishing other teams with their work ethic and consistent pressure. The goals, I believe, will come. And they did tonight. 5-3 in the 3rd.
**Thanks for reading. Goodnight folks.**
On edit: Prucha just got game winning goal in OT! More tomorrow. :) But to see the jump in his step. Well, well deserved.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Avery, Avery, Avery. . .
Even though I was not able to write a blog entry (and oh how I wanted to on Friday night!) and was out of computer-land, I had a blackberry that allowed me to slightly keep up with the hockey world. So the news of Sean Avery's potential return is not completely unknown to me. (And as if a bunch of us weren't curious the moment it came out he'd never play another game for the green, black, and gold).
If anyone wants to go back in this blog and search "Sean Avery", they will find that I was a fan of his and went so far as to defend him at times during this season. I won't belabor that fact, but you can feel free to check up on it.
Therefore, if Sean Avery does indeed become a New York Ranger - again - as it appears may very well happen, I for one will welcome him with open arms. Here's why:
Sean Avery will never be the best hockey player. Not on talent. Not in points. But he, like many of the others cast aside by New York management in recent years, got it. He got what it meant to wear the sweater. He got what it meant to stick up for his teammates. He got what it took to win and did everything he could for that cause.
The Rangers sorely lack much of the above. The fact that even with Colton Orr, Aaron Voros, and anyone else who has ever "fought" for this team let Zherdev's broken nose go unpunished (clean hit or not) is unacceptable. The fact that this team, with those same players, has let its goalie get run without so much as a dirty look all year is disgusting. I like Colton Orr just fine, but I really thought that was the reason he was here. Please tell me it was not just to fight Eric Godard 3 seconds into a game because he wanted to. And please don't tell me it was to score goals.
When I heard that no one, save Dubinsky, really said anything to Steve Ott after that incident on Friday, my first thought to myself was, well, Sean Avery would have.
So essentially I want Avery on my team because I think he, in a perfect world, will bring back all the great things he once did for this team and all he meant.
The fans loved him. He loved the fans. The Rangers, in every capacity, were a better team with him than without him. I was, indeed, sad to see him go.
Notice, though, I said "in a perfect world."
Here-in, fans, truly lies the rub. The Rangers, right now, are not a perfect anything. Team, destination, situation. To think that adding one person, even Sean Avery, will make a difference, is silly.
I personally think Avery has the potential to score more goals than many on this team, but on a team that so lacks the ability to put the puck in the net, I don't know who would help him do so.
He's not going to help the defense. He's not going to be a miracle. That much I do believe.
Also, and potentially more importantly, we are getting a possibly "re-created" Sean Avery. While I do not believe that he has been re-constructed to the point that he is not the Avery that I love anymore, I would be lying if I didn't admit that in the back of my mind I did have some small fear that he will not (not cannot, but will not) play the same way he did up until his lacerated spleen last spring.
That is a risk that anyone takes. After injury. After something unprecedented like this. You never know what you are going to get.
Look, some people are going to be very mad if Avery is a New York Ranger again. Some people think he's a jerk. Hell, maybe he is.
But just like Tom Renney can't be his team's coach and their best friend, Sean Avery doesn't have to be everyone's best friend, he just has to be their teammate. A good teammate.
I really don't believe all his teammates hated him, just as I'm sure not everyone loved him. But on the ice, I think they all know he had their back.
For that reason, and the fact that I am still holding - very firmly - to the fact that I think he can be an effective player in this league, I want to see him come back and prove it.
If nothing - if nothing! - else, the Rangers that lack almost any form of passion, excitement, pulse, and drive, should hopefully get all that and more from Sean.
That alone will be reason for many who have, and understandably so, turned off their TVs and stopped watching this team play dead, to come back this season.
I'm sure as this potential situation comes closer to reality, I'll have more comments. We all will. But for now, I'll think back to Larry Brook's quote from late June 2008 in The Post that I commented upon:
"The Rangers can pay Avery now . . . or they can pay for the next four years for not signing him. The choice is theirs. They have approximately 48 hours to make it."
Gee. I mean I honestly wonder which self proclaimed "good game" or "dominating" performance Sather saw that convinced him that he needed to rectify this horrible mistake that he was once warned so clearly against making. . .?
If anyone wants to go back in this blog and search "Sean Avery", they will find that I was a fan of his and went so far as to defend him at times during this season. I won't belabor that fact, but you can feel free to check up on it.
Therefore, if Sean Avery does indeed become a New York Ranger - again - as it appears may very well happen, I for one will welcome him with open arms. Here's why:
Sean Avery will never be the best hockey player. Not on talent. Not in points. But he, like many of the others cast aside by New York management in recent years, got it. He got what it meant to wear the sweater. He got what it meant to stick up for his teammates. He got what it took to win and did everything he could for that cause.
The Rangers sorely lack much of the above. The fact that even with Colton Orr, Aaron Voros, and anyone else who has ever "fought" for this team let Zherdev's broken nose go unpunished (clean hit or not) is unacceptable. The fact that this team, with those same players, has let its goalie get run without so much as a dirty look all year is disgusting. I like Colton Orr just fine, but I really thought that was the reason he was here. Please tell me it was not just to fight Eric Godard 3 seconds into a game because he wanted to. And please don't tell me it was to score goals.
When I heard that no one, save Dubinsky, really said anything to Steve Ott after that incident on Friday, my first thought to myself was, well, Sean Avery would have.
So essentially I want Avery on my team because I think he, in a perfect world, will bring back all the great things he once did for this team and all he meant.
The fans loved him. He loved the fans. The Rangers, in every capacity, were a better team with him than without him. I was, indeed, sad to see him go.
Notice, though, I said "in a perfect world."
Here-in, fans, truly lies the rub. The Rangers, right now, are not a perfect anything. Team, destination, situation. To think that adding one person, even Sean Avery, will make a difference, is silly.
I personally think Avery has the potential to score more goals than many on this team, but on a team that so lacks the ability to put the puck in the net, I don't know who would help him do so.
He's not going to help the defense. He's not going to be a miracle. That much I do believe.
Also, and potentially more importantly, we are getting a possibly "re-created" Sean Avery. While I do not believe that he has been re-constructed to the point that he is not the Avery that I love anymore, I would be lying if I didn't admit that in the back of my mind I did have some small fear that he will not (not cannot, but will not) play the same way he did up until his lacerated spleen last spring.
That is a risk that anyone takes. After injury. After something unprecedented like this. You never know what you are going to get.
Look, some people are going to be very mad if Avery is a New York Ranger again. Some people think he's a jerk. Hell, maybe he is.
But just like Tom Renney can't be his team's coach and their best friend, Sean Avery doesn't have to be everyone's best friend, he just has to be their teammate. A good teammate.
I really don't believe all his teammates hated him, just as I'm sure not everyone loved him. But on the ice, I think they all know he had their back.
For that reason, and the fact that I am still holding - very firmly - to the fact that I think he can be an effective player in this league, I want to see him come back and prove it.
If nothing - if nothing! - else, the Rangers that lack almost any form of passion, excitement, pulse, and drive, should hopefully get all that and more from Sean.
That alone will be reason for many who have, and understandably so, turned off their TVs and stopped watching this team play dead, to come back this season.
I'm sure as this potential situation comes closer to reality, I'll have more comments. We all will. But for now, I'll think back to Larry Brook's quote from late June 2008 in The Post that I commented upon:
"The Rangers can pay Avery now . . . or they can pay for the next four years for not signing him. The choice is theirs. They have approximately 48 hours to make it."
Gee. I mean I honestly wonder which self proclaimed "good game" or "dominating" performance Sather saw that convinced him that he needed to rectify this horrible mistake that he was once warned so clearly against making. . .?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Is Vanilla All This Team Can Truly Be. . .?
I'd hope not. But so far this season there just isn't much evidence to argue against that idea.
Vanilla. Yes, there is that word again. Remember Steven Stamkos and I happen to like vanilla as an ice cream flavor. But I however do not - NOT - like vanilla on my hockey team!
Larry Brooks wrote a heck of an article today, with one of his best lines of the year; and he's had quite a few.
BLUESHIRTS NEED PERSONALITY FIX
Brooks wonders, among other things, why Sather, so long a fan of the big personality, big chance type guy, suddenly finds himself with:
"this class of players that seems more like a busload of tourists determined not to get separated from the group than they do citizens of the city the way Jagr was and Avery was and Messier, Leetch, Richter and Graves were?"
Wow. The "busload of tourists" description is kind of uncanny right?
Name one guy, save Hank, who can be THE guy on this team. I've been saying it all year.
There is no one, no one save mostly bland and vanilla.
And those few that aren't: Valiquette, Prucha, Zherdev, Korpikoski, Mara; they are not in position to be anything outside the favored system, if they even get a chance to play at all. And none of the just mentioned are anywhere near what Messier and the like were. Not that many could ever hope to be.
Argue Avery's inclusion all you want. Surely Brooks is not implying that Avery belongs in the same sentence with all these either current or future Hall of Famers and/or Garden number retirees on their legendary status.
He's merely saying that that guy WAS New York. In his actions on the ice, and his passion for the game while he was here. Yes. That guy was more man of the city than passive observer.
This current team is all passive observer.
And the one guy that can - and does - carry them, is being overused, plain and simple.
It is fascinating though. Who's idea was it? Obviously Sather got the personnel in here (although perhaps Renney pulled for his guys and Pearn pulled for Redden, although one really knows why), but I pondered over dinner and after reading Brooks' article, that if this is not Sather's type of team, perhaps he finally gave Renney reigns to do it his way?
After a few years of letting Jagr and his play make or break this team, maybe Renney finally got to do what he wanted. Make a team as - like the guy or not - bland and boring as perhaps he wants them to be.
I find it suspiscious, still, that Renney got to hand pick his captain and he picked the guy in the room least likely to say anything. Anything when things went right. Anything when things went wrong.
Anything.
But what do I know?
I know that I still stand by what I said at the end of last week after the Pittsburgh collapse. There is no way that this team, this team that cannot score, will make it past one round in the playoffs if they have to face a team like Washington, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Montreal, or New Jersey. No way. They can win a game or two, but they are not shutting down those offenses for a long series.
And, face it, unless they suddenly wake up and learn to score, this team cannot score enough to make a difference.
And even though it's been said before by Brooks, he again points out just how badly Gomez and Drury are performing compared to expectations. Maybe we as fans can't expect too much out of guys that should be complementary players and not leaders, but if they are being paid to do such, the least they can do is be vocal when it counts and be held accountable when they aren't cutting it.
On the flip side, new/old Journal News blog writer, Rick Carpiniello, wrote a pretty nice argument in favor of Renney.
http://rangers.lohudblogs.com/2009/02/01/let-the-discussion-begin-yikes/
Assuming for a moment that I agree with the "this is the best he can do with what's given" argument, I still have a few problems with Renney. They are:
-The fact that no one on this team, save those that really shouldn't be, are held accountable when need be. If other coaches, coaches who have been in the league longer and brought their team further in the playoffs (Lindy Ruff, Craig MacTavish, Guy Carbonneau) can sit or publically call out their BEST players when they are having a bad night or stretch of games, why does Renney outright refuse to do the same? He many times refuses to even admit when a player is playing horribly but rather stands by them like a protective father. Is he their coach or their best friend? He can't be both. And he has to be mean when that is necessary to correct a problem!
-The fact that the powerplay has been horrific, not just for this season, but for the last few before it. It's only savings grace, post-lockout, was Jagr and Nylander, who even if they didn't score, still ate up time in the offensive zone wearing out opponents. This year the powerplay not only isn't scoring; it's given up the most shorthanded goals in the entire league. And not only has this coach not answered for it AT ALL, but he's not changed anything AT ALL. Last week in Pittsburgh I saw the same Drury/Gomez/Naslund train wreck that started the first two months on the powerplay. WORST of all - - They weren't even practicing it at practice. They only started when practically forced into it by fans and media. If that's not a joke, I don't know what is.
-The fact that he will hold players out of the lineup with no explaination, and, even worse, give horribly two-faced and hypocritical answers if he gives justification for his actions at all. He's lying or he's lying by ommission. Either way, this coach is lying. And he's doing it to one of the ONLY players that has constantly shown heart and loyalty. It's the biggest mystery of them all!
On that note, Rick has promised to ask Renney about Prucha, as he himself is confused. Add Rick to the one person Prucha support committee in Larry Brooks, and we'll see if he can get any answers for the rest of us.
Vanilla. Yes, there is that word again. Remember Steven Stamkos and I happen to like vanilla as an ice cream flavor. But I however do not - NOT - like vanilla on my hockey team!
Larry Brooks wrote a heck of an article today, with one of his best lines of the year; and he's had quite a few.
BLUESHIRTS NEED PERSONALITY FIX
Brooks wonders, among other things, why Sather, so long a fan of the big personality, big chance type guy, suddenly finds himself with:
"this class of players that seems more like a busload of tourists determined not to get separated from the group than they do citizens of the city the way Jagr was and Avery was and Messier, Leetch, Richter and Graves were?"
Wow. The "busload of tourists" description is kind of uncanny right?
Name one guy, save Hank, who can be THE guy on this team. I've been saying it all year.
There is no one, no one save mostly bland and vanilla.
And those few that aren't: Valiquette, Prucha, Zherdev, Korpikoski, Mara; they are not in position to be anything outside the favored system, if they even get a chance to play at all. And none of the just mentioned are anywhere near what Messier and the like were. Not that many could ever hope to be.
Argue Avery's inclusion all you want. Surely Brooks is not implying that Avery belongs in the same sentence with all these either current or future Hall of Famers and/or Garden number retirees on their legendary status.
He's merely saying that that guy WAS New York. In his actions on the ice, and his passion for the game while he was here. Yes. That guy was more man of the city than passive observer.
This current team is all passive observer.
And the one guy that can - and does - carry them, is being overused, plain and simple.
It is fascinating though. Who's idea was it? Obviously Sather got the personnel in here (although perhaps Renney pulled for his guys and Pearn pulled for Redden, although one really knows why), but I pondered over dinner and after reading Brooks' article, that if this is not Sather's type of team, perhaps he finally gave Renney reigns to do it his way?
After a few years of letting Jagr and his play make or break this team, maybe Renney finally got to do what he wanted. Make a team as - like the guy or not - bland and boring as perhaps he wants them to be.
I find it suspiscious, still, that Renney got to hand pick his captain and he picked the guy in the room least likely to say anything. Anything when things went right. Anything when things went wrong.
Anything.
But what do I know?
I know that I still stand by what I said at the end of last week after the Pittsburgh collapse. There is no way that this team, this team that cannot score, will make it past one round in the playoffs if they have to face a team like Washington, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Montreal, or New Jersey. No way. They can win a game or two, but they are not shutting down those offenses for a long series.
And, face it, unless they suddenly wake up and learn to score, this team cannot score enough to make a difference.
And even though it's been said before by Brooks, he again points out just how badly Gomez and Drury are performing compared to expectations. Maybe we as fans can't expect too much out of guys that should be complementary players and not leaders, but if they are being paid to do such, the least they can do is be vocal when it counts and be held accountable when they aren't cutting it.
On the flip side, new/old Journal News blog writer, Rick Carpiniello, wrote a pretty nice argument in favor of Renney.
http://rangers.lohudblogs.com/2009/02/01/let-the-discussion-begin-yikes/
Assuming for a moment that I agree with the "this is the best he can do with what's given" argument, I still have a few problems with Renney. They are:
-The fact that no one on this team, save those that really shouldn't be, are held accountable when need be. If other coaches, coaches who have been in the league longer and brought their team further in the playoffs (Lindy Ruff, Craig MacTavish, Guy Carbonneau) can sit or publically call out their BEST players when they are having a bad night or stretch of games, why does Renney outright refuse to do the same? He many times refuses to even admit when a player is playing horribly but rather stands by them like a protective father. Is he their coach or their best friend? He can't be both. And he has to be mean when that is necessary to correct a problem!
-The fact that the powerplay has been horrific, not just for this season, but for the last few before it. It's only savings grace, post-lockout, was Jagr and Nylander, who even if they didn't score, still ate up time in the offensive zone wearing out opponents. This year the powerplay not only isn't scoring; it's given up the most shorthanded goals in the entire league. And not only has this coach not answered for it AT ALL, but he's not changed anything AT ALL. Last week in Pittsburgh I saw the same Drury/Gomez/Naslund train wreck that started the first two months on the powerplay. WORST of all - - They weren't even practicing it at practice. They only started when practically forced into it by fans and media. If that's not a joke, I don't know what is.
-The fact that he will hold players out of the lineup with no explaination, and, even worse, give horribly two-faced and hypocritical answers if he gives justification for his actions at all. He's lying or he's lying by ommission. Either way, this coach is lying. And he's doing it to one of the ONLY players that has constantly shown heart and loyalty. It's the biggest mystery of them all!
On that note, Rick has promised to ask Renney about Prucha, as he himself is confused. Add Rick to the one person Prucha support committee in Larry Brooks, and we'll see if he can get any answers for the rest of us.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Greatness Appreciated. . .
I do not have time to comment on this, but I've said it at least eight times so far this year and probably much more.
Alex Ovechkin is the guy.
THE guy.
The guy the NHL should be drooling over.
THe guy they should be using in marketing campaigns.
He's their guy.
THE guy.
I cannot help but love his love for the game and you feel it - each and every time he takes the ice.
As Brooks said, he is probably not more talented that Crosby.
He's probably not the best skater.
The best passer.
The best goal scorer.
But he is - in my mind - the best.
No question.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282008/sports/moresports/nhl_eclipsing_brightest_star_146182.htm
The NHL is lucky to have a GREAT group of young talented players that will own this league for the next 15 or so years.
Embrace it. Enjoy it.
I know I do.
Alex Ovechkin is the guy.
THE guy.
The guy the NHL should be drooling over.
THe guy they should be using in marketing campaigns.
He's their guy.
THE guy.
I cannot help but love his love for the game and you feel it - each and every time he takes the ice.
As Brooks said, he is probably not more talented that Crosby.
He's probably not the best skater.
The best passer.
The best goal scorer.
But he is - in my mind - the best.
No question.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282008/sports/moresports/nhl_eclipsing_brightest_star_146182.htm
The NHL is lucky to have a GREAT group of young talented players that will own this league for the next 15 or so years.
Embrace it. Enjoy it.
I know I do.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Summer of Sundin Finally Ends December 18th [UPDATED]. . .
Wow. Umm, so Mats Sundin is not going to play in New York this year. At all this year.
I guess it's about time there was an answer. Any answer.
The "Summer of Sundin" and all it's deadlines, quickly gave way from July 1st, to sometime in August, and before anyone could have expected it, 3 months of the season have been played, and everyone was then hearing deadlines of December 1st, December 15th, Christmas, after Christmas.
I think so many people were just sick of hearing about it. I obviously haven't written much about it (except my angry mention of it in tangent the other day earlier this week), since before the season started.
Am I happy or unhappy with Mats inevitable decison to play for Vancouver instead of New York?
Actually neither.
What I am is shocked.
A friend of mine got a text from her friend and told me the news last night. I was like, what? It actually was hard to believe. It almost still is. Almost six months of what if, and in what seems like a second, we have our answer.
I guess only Mats himself can know what was in his head and how much it was a 2-team race, or whatnot. But I can only go on what I know, which is very little and mostly hearsay, probably.
I was of the opinion that he was going to Montreal, back this summer. When summer faded, Montreal signed Robert Lang, and said, we're done, I still thought there would maybe be an outside chance.
I thought, like so many others, that if it were truly the money that mattered, he'd have been in Vancouver to start the season.
Perhaps none of it really mattered as much as his not being sure. And really needing extra time to figure it out. Not anyone's favorite thing, because a player like Mats held up a lot of other plans for a lot of teams, but it is his right and I can't fault him for that.
Perhaps after all of this time, the bad travel schedule for the Canucks didn't seem so bad to him if it was only going to be for half a season. I mean, yeah, I'm sure the money didn't hurt either. But the timing is funny.
Perhaps he saw part of the Trevor Linden ceremony and said, these guys can use a leader more than New York can and thought he could fit in there better. Maybe Mattias Ohlund, Alexander Edler, and the Sedin twins were more appealing than Markus Naslund, Hank, and Freddy Sjostrom were.
Perhaps it really was just the fact that the Rangers realized they needed to shed more than just a player or two, and were not prepared to do so at all, or certainly so quickly. And once Mats said, I want to play, he wanted to play as soon as possible.
Perhaps, we'll never truly know. There are just too many eventualities.
So to recap, I am not disappointed. I bare no ill will. I rather enjoy Vancouver and think they are a good organization. I hope Mats and the team have a better season than I thought they would, as remember, I picked them to miss the playoffs this year.
But let's face it, Rangers fans, Vancouver will have nothing directly to do with us unless there is a very, very, very unlikely repeat of the teams in the 1994 Finals. So live, let live, and let's all move on as best as we can.
And I say, as best as we can, because surely, a lot of Rangers players - those that play, like Rozsival, Kalinin, and perhaps even Gomez, and those that don't, like Prucha and Fritsche, surely wondered if they'd be around to spend Christmas in New York. As it stands, they will. For how long? I'm not sure.
I guess the only part of me that sees this as bittersweet is the part that thought, gee, Mats Sundin on Broadway, how cool would that be. Cool because I have always liked the guy, the way he played, the way he skated, and the leader he was in Toronto through good and bad times.
And Mats coming to New York would have been satisfying only more so in that it would finally answer some questions for the players on this team. Make the perhaps needed shakeup. Get guys like Prucha or Fritsche - who I still contend can be full time players on other teams in this league - out of New York so that they can do what they love to do, which is play hockey. [Even if #25's departure would cause me to burst into tears, which I won't try to deny].
Instead, they stand pat. Two surprising wins into their 3 game West Coast swing [where I was betting they'd maybe win one], and going into San Jose tomorrow night, where the Sharks will be coming off a 6-0 drubbing at the hands of Detroit. I'll be curious. Tomorrow. Next week. For the next little while. On a given night, what team shows up? And even if they do show up, will they be exciting enough to watch...?
Anyway. Mats, good luck in Vancouver. Seriously, there are no hard feelings, at least not from this fan. Just a lot of questions, a lot of questions with perhaps no chance of ever being answered.
**Update Dec 20th, 11:31 am:
Great line by Larry Brooks in yesterday's NY Post online. And what I've been saying - not necessarily in regards to Mats Sundin but the team in general - all year long:
"Let's face it, though. The Rangers didn't lose Sundin yesterday. They lost Sundin on July 1 when Sather had perhaps the worst day on the market since people were jumping out of windows on Black Friday of Oct. 25, 1929."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12192008/sports/rangers/no_shock__sundin_followed_the_money_144914.htm
This team is handicapped not only for this year, but perhaps for as many as 3-4 more. For those of you that wanted or like Gomez, Drury (2007's blunders), Redden, Rozsival, and Kalinin (2008's crop of the overpaid) on this team, you have to take a deep long look and realize those moves - one, two, or all of them - will hurt the Rangers in the end.
If they haven't already.**
I guess it's about time there was an answer. Any answer.
The "Summer of Sundin" and all it's deadlines, quickly gave way from July 1st, to sometime in August, and before anyone could have expected it, 3 months of the season have been played, and everyone was then hearing deadlines of December 1st, December 15th, Christmas, after Christmas.
I think so many people were just sick of hearing about it. I obviously haven't written much about it (except my angry mention of it in tangent the other day earlier this week), since before the season started.
Am I happy or unhappy with Mats inevitable decison to play for Vancouver instead of New York?
Actually neither.
What I am is shocked.
A friend of mine got a text from her friend and told me the news last night. I was like, what? It actually was hard to believe. It almost still is. Almost six months of what if, and in what seems like a second, we have our answer.
I guess only Mats himself can know what was in his head and how much it was a 2-team race, or whatnot. But I can only go on what I know, which is very little and mostly hearsay, probably.
I was of the opinion that he was going to Montreal, back this summer. When summer faded, Montreal signed Robert Lang, and said, we're done, I still thought there would maybe be an outside chance.
I thought, like so many others, that if it were truly the money that mattered, he'd have been in Vancouver to start the season.
Perhaps none of it really mattered as much as his not being sure. And really needing extra time to figure it out. Not anyone's favorite thing, because a player like Mats held up a lot of other plans for a lot of teams, but it is his right and I can't fault him for that.
Perhaps after all of this time, the bad travel schedule for the Canucks didn't seem so bad to him if it was only going to be for half a season. I mean, yeah, I'm sure the money didn't hurt either. But the timing is funny.
Perhaps he saw part of the Trevor Linden ceremony and said, these guys can use a leader more than New York can and thought he could fit in there better. Maybe Mattias Ohlund, Alexander Edler, and the Sedin twins were more appealing than Markus Naslund, Hank, and Freddy Sjostrom were.
Perhaps it really was just the fact that the Rangers realized they needed to shed more than just a player or two, and were not prepared to do so at all, or certainly so quickly. And once Mats said, I want to play, he wanted to play as soon as possible.
Perhaps, we'll never truly know. There are just too many eventualities.
So to recap, I am not disappointed. I bare no ill will. I rather enjoy Vancouver and think they are a good organization. I hope Mats and the team have a better season than I thought they would, as remember, I picked them to miss the playoffs this year.
But let's face it, Rangers fans, Vancouver will have nothing directly to do with us unless there is a very, very, very unlikely repeat of the teams in the 1994 Finals. So live, let live, and let's all move on as best as we can.
And I say, as best as we can, because surely, a lot of Rangers players - those that play, like Rozsival, Kalinin, and perhaps even Gomez, and those that don't, like Prucha and Fritsche, surely wondered if they'd be around to spend Christmas in New York. As it stands, they will. For how long? I'm not sure.
I guess the only part of me that sees this as bittersweet is the part that thought, gee, Mats Sundin on Broadway, how cool would that be. Cool because I have always liked the guy, the way he played, the way he skated, and the leader he was in Toronto through good and bad times.
And Mats coming to New York would have been satisfying only more so in that it would finally answer some questions for the players on this team. Make the perhaps needed shakeup. Get guys like Prucha or Fritsche - who I still contend can be full time players on other teams in this league - out of New York so that they can do what they love to do, which is play hockey. [Even if #25's departure would cause me to burst into tears, which I won't try to deny].
Instead, they stand pat. Two surprising wins into their 3 game West Coast swing [where I was betting they'd maybe win one], and going into San Jose tomorrow night, where the Sharks will be coming off a 6-0 drubbing at the hands of Detroit. I'll be curious. Tomorrow. Next week. For the next little while. On a given night, what team shows up? And even if they do show up, will they be exciting enough to watch...?
Anyway. Mats, good luck in Vancouver. Seriously, there are no hard feelings, at least not from this fan. Just a lot of questions, a lot of questions with perhaps no chance of ever being answered.
**Update Dec 20th, 11:31 am:
Great line by Larry Brooks in yesterday's NY Post online. And what I've been saying - not necessarily in regards to Mats Sundin but the team in general - all year long:
"Let's face it, though. The Rangers didn't lose Sundin yesterday. They lost Sundin on July 1 when Sather had perhaps the worst day on the market since people were jumping out of windows on Black Friday of Oct. 25, 1929."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12192008/sports/rangers/no_shock__sundin_followed_the_money_144914.htm
This team is handicapped not only for this year, but perhaps for as many as 3-4 more. For those of you that wanted or like Gomez, Drury (2007's blunders), Redden, Rozsival, and Kalinin (2008's crop of the overpaid) on this team, you have to take a deep long look and realize those moves - one, two, or all of them - will hurt the Rangers in the end.
If they haven't already.**
Saturday, October 25, 2008
All We Want Is Answers. . .
"Talk about wiping a smile off someone's face."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10252008/sports/rangers/pruchas_blueshirts_saga_still_a_mystery_135150.htm
Take a minute to read this article on Petr Prucha. It's short, to the point, and hopefully, someone that matters will see it. This kid deserves a) a shot or b) to be traded immediately. He deserves to smile somewhere.
Thanks, Larry. I get The Post and this was featured almost full page and with a giant color picture of Prucha. Attention grabbed. I hope.
In other news:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3662877
Poor Manny Legace. Seriously, I like the guy a lot. Great sense of humor. I'm not posting this in any way for political reasons. I just hope he didn't hurt himself too badly. That would be a sincere shame.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10252008/sports/rangers/pruchas_blueshirts_saga_still_a_mystery_135150.htm
Take a minute to read this article on Petr Prucha. It's short, to the point, and hopefully, someone that matters will see it. This kid deserves a) a shot or b) to be traded immediately. He deserves to smile somewhere.
Thanks, Larry. I get The Post and this was featured almost full page and with a giant color picture of Prucha. Attention grabbed. I hope.
In other news:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3662877
Poor Manny Legace. Seriously, I like the guy a lot. Great sense of humor. I'm not posting this in any way for political reasons. I just hope he didn't hurt himself too badly. That would be a sincere shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
