Avery Quotes: "Be a Ranger". . .

Well it's funny (and by funny, I don't really mean haha funny), that I don't write a blog about the Rangers in a week, and essentially (ignoring those two glorious 6-2, 8-2 wins - where did those come from again?), the Rangers are right back where they left off after having back to back shutouts posted against them.

Sigh.

I could have stepped in here and written how amazing it was to watch those games against Montreal and Tampa last week. The way they fought, the way they skated, the way they scored goals. The way they SHOWED UP.

But, the Rangers are the Rangers and we all should have known better. Perhaps I did. I may love this team but they are flawed. And flawed less in talent to me, than in attitude and drive. And that's what makes us all livid. If they aren't good enough, fine. That is what it is. But if they aren't trying. That's all on them. 100%.

I woke up and read The NY Post as I do every Sunday. Like nor dislike Brooks, he is not vanilla, that's for sure.

He has some dandy quotes from Avery, as have been floating around Twitter this morning. The highlights:

"You can say it's a lack of preparation, but that's BS; it's a lack of competitiveness...We do not play hard enough."

"I don't have the explanation for it. I don't know if it's us not holding each other accountable, or what, but it's a total lack of respect for our fans and the organization. It's a joke."

And lastly:

"It's fine if you get beat. It's fine if you compete and get beat, but to play this way . . . that's not what it's like to be a Ranger."

Like him, hate him, love him, loathe him, at least Sean Avery is one of the few players to tell it like it is.

The sad reality is, of course, as fans we like to think we know what it is to "Be a Ranger."

But, after the last 15 years and counting, and with the exceptions few and far between, isn't the reality of "being a Ranger" less about what it should be and more about exactly what we are seeing: laziness, half-efforts, blase attitude.

I HATE to say that. I praise Avery for realizing it should not be so.

But when does "Being a Ranger" mean Pride, Passion, Tradition, like I used to think it meant. Loyalty to a sweater. Passion for a game. Pride for an organization that had been around for over 80 years.

Sean says he gets it. But is that enough?

And I'll Turn It Over To You Larry [UPDATED]. . .

After games like yesterday, I greatly look forward to waking up and reading Larry Brook's column in the New York Post to make some sense of the apparently non-sensical.

He did another great job of that today.

Here are the highlights:

"Somehow, the Rangers almost always look far worse in losing than they appear impressive in winning."

That statement is so damn true it hurts. When they lose, they lose ugly. When they win, they often win in such an uninspiring fashion, it feels like a loss.

There've been so few wins this season that truly felt like wins, I'm now struggling to think of an example to type here. An example of a decisive, all-around, courageous, passionate, team win.

The one early game against the Devils at the Garden came close, the game (not so long ago) against Pittsburgh at the Garden two weeks ago today was another perhaps.

But with 27 wins and more than halfway into the season, it's hard for me to accept that there hasn't been more to cheer about.

"An optical illusion" their record is according to Brooks. And he's right. I've been saying "smoke and mirrors" for a few months now. This team has been lucky at times, but they got exposed - again - in the worst way yesterday.

Unfortunately, they'll probably somehow scrape together one of their Renney-patented 2-1 victories at the Garden tomorrow, to make everyone think it's A-OK in Rangerland. And the team, as constructed, will live another day.

But as if there is anything they can really do about that? Personnel wise I mean. But that is nothing new. As I mentioned late last week, they are stuck with most of this un-tradeable lot for at least the next three seasons.

Oh, but of course, they can swap healthy scratches, right?

"Renney broke up the line late in the third, replacing Callahan with Nigel Dawes. The coach, at the same time, shifted Callahan onto the unit with Chris Drury and Petr Prucha. Why does it seem that the move was a precursor to sitting Prucha tomorrow night and replacing him with Aaron Voros, a scratch throughout the road trip?"

Even before the lines were officially switched yesterday, I figured this is the perfect type of game for Renney to say, oh, this, this isn't working, let's shake it up. And I figured, of course, it'd be Prucha taking a seat in order for him to do so. So reading this was not a surprise. It made me nauseated, but it was not a surprise at all.

I mean, surely - obviously - it was Prucha's lack of intensity and lack of scoring or his defensive liability - his soley - that caused yesterdays embarassment on ice.

Obviously.

It couldn't possibly be that - yet again - the entire team was exposed for the frauds they are. That they are a "rotten," uninspired team, that somehow managed to bore their way to the top of the conference.

And one of the few exciting and inspired players - the guy who started the renaissance against a flailing Islanders team on Garden ice, the guy who scored the only goal a few days later in Washington, and the guy whose gutsy play from his rear end a week later in Ottawa lead to the game winning goal - is going to take a seat because, really, who else can the coach blame?

I'd be more disturbed, if I didn't know it was coming, somewhere down the pike. Team efforts - good team efforts - were going to come to an end soon. Or, rather, this team was going to be exposed for their complete and utter lack of them.

That time came yesterday.

Oh and make no mistake. These are not your father's New York Rangers.

Hell, they are not even the New York Rangers of my youth. At least those guys weren't boring. At least they weren't as life-less as the bunch of "oh but we love each other" drones I saw yesterday and that I've seen most of this season.

And the one guy that isn't a boring drone, he'll probably take a seat tomorrow.

A shame really. Just truly a shame.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/sports/rangers/rangers_road_trip_ends_with_ugly_loss_150857.htm


**Author's note on edit:
Please note that I read Larry's column on my own this morning before readng Sam Weinman's Rangers Report. But apparently he agrees with me. Great line by Brooks:

http://rangers.lohudblogs.com/2009/01/19/critical-juncture/

A Little Slice Of Everything Else. . .

Random Ramblings From Around the League:

-Pat Kane will miss his first game in the last 117, and his first ever since beginning his career with Chicago, today, with a high ankle sprain. :(

- Last night Scott Oake interviewed a Brenden Morrow in street clothes and asked him about the Sean Avery/Distractions/Stars Slow start. Morrow said, "Unfortunately he did take a lot of the blame - whether it was warranted or not."

Not sure if that's a PR type answer, but I found it interesting. Blame Sean Avery all you want, there was more going on in Dallas. And they were playing better. Unfortunately last night's game got them nothing more than a 4-1 loss to once rival Edmonton.

-Sorry I missed all of the opening of HNIC, but I caught After Hours. Looks like there was a story on Andrew Cogliano, Sam Gagner, and Tom Gilbert living together. Those are always the best, because it just shows young guys, being young guys. Good stuff.

World Juniors:

-Quite an ending to the Canadian/Russian tilt last night. Edmonton fan and draft pick, Jordan Eberle, ties the game at 5 with 5.4 seconds to go, to force overtime, and a shootout. Eberle and golden child Jon Tavares would score in the shootout, lifting Canada to the Gold Medal Game against Sweden this week.

The All-Star-Controversy:

What controversy? The NHL gives the fans the right to vote in whomever they want to start the game. That's a fact. Credit the fans of Pittsburgh for wanting so badly to right the ship, that they began voting - and rightfully so - for Malkin and Crosby to be starters for the big game.

You can say that all fans should be more responsible and vote for the best and not the popularity vote. But, come on, now. Most of us who went to high school can attest that just doesn't happen.

Montreal for their 100th anniversary and All-Star game wanted to have all Habs on the roster. Fine. No different than the Yankees fans stuffing their ballot boxes to get way more Yankees than were actually deserving to play in the last All-Star game at the Stadium this past summer.

Is it right? Probably not. But it's not surprising.

The only thing that is perhaps a little off, is anyone trying to justify these players getting selected on merit. NHL.com's writeup where the fans must have looked past Mike Komisarek's numbers to realize what more he has to offer, is just silly. He's a great D-man. But an All-Star this year. . . sorry, no.

The right people will still go. I think people just have to pay less attention to "starters," knowing what they do about how they are selected.

Obviously if I were voting - and no, I did not - Ovechkin and Tim Thomas would have been in there for the East. But I'm confident they'll get to go. Although Boston should have a lot more than one representative, and if Marc Savard does not get a tip, it's yet another year he's overlooked for how great he his.

Guys like Jeff Carter and Zach Parise should also be rewarded for their great years.

For the Rangers, if anyone goes, it should be Hank. If he doesn't want to, Marc Staal should be considered, even if there is no "real" hitting in the game. If anyone else goes from New York, it will be a joke.

Out West, Kane and Toews are fine by me. Obviously. J.S. Giguere is always a favorite, and he'll be going back home. I think there should have definitely been a push for some Sharks or Wings on the starting ballot, but I'm also sure they will be there come game time.

Overall, just keep in mind that it is, merely, what it is. I happen to enjoy All-Star games, for pretty much everything but the actual game. . .the interviews, the mic'd up goalies, the skills competition - even if that has lost some luster. The game itself, after all, means very little. If Montreal wants to live it up, let them. How many other franchises have been around that long and accomplished so many remarkable things. It'll be quite a show, I'm sure.

Rangers:

-If you want Rangers news, pick up the NY Post today. Not only is their the usual 2 articles - Slapshots and a write-up of whatever Rangers game happened Saturday night, but there is an interview with Tom Renney (gasp), and Hank Lundqvist featured on Page Six Magazine.

-I recommend you do not eat anything while reading the Renney interview. It reads much like his post-game interviews. I find it interesting he talks so extensively of 9-11 and how much it meant to him, and continues to mean to him. Perhaps that makes me less surprised he picked a Canadian-molded American for his team captain. Of course his international career in ice hockey make me wonder how happy he is to have 3 Swedes on the team. You'd think the team colors alone would be enough to set him off.

**Random side note, on Renny, btw. I missed this quote from him after Monday's game against the Isles about one Petr Prucha. Courtesy of Ranger Rants and Andrew Gross: http://njmg.typepad.com/rangersblog/2008/12/watch-out.html

"Renney said he expects Petr Prucha to remain in the lineup, at least for the next few games. Renney said he is looking for some "sustainability" out of Prucha's game, meaning he needs to see exactly what he got last night. Prucha has gone in and (mostly) out of the line because he hasn't shown sustainability in his game.
Prucha said he does not and has not wanted to be traded despite his lack of playing time and, for the most part, does not think or worry about the fact that he does not have a contract with the Rangers past this season.
"Not unless you remind me," Prucha said, when I asked him about it.

To which I say, sustainability my @ss!**

-As for the Hank article in Page Six, it's a good read. He is a unique player. A unique person. And as unassuming a superstar as this team may ever see. It's both intriguing and refreshing.

I just hope they don't ruin him!!

-Lastly, Larry Brooks' article on the game speaks about how the Rangers "specialty teams" are anything but "special." They might just cost this team a playoff berth in the end.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01042009/sports/rangers/special_team_woes_plague_blueshirts_147161.htm

My personal favorite though:

"The shame of it is that the Rangers and the coaching staff seem unable to reverse the season-long follies on the PP. PP? Hey, maybe that's a signal head coach Tom Renney should recognize - PP, as in Petr PruchaPetr Prucha , who scored for the second straight game and is the team's most potent, if unused and thus dormant, weapon with the man advantage.

Of course, it only took half a season for Renney to recognize what Prucha has to offer at even-strength, so it's probably unwise to expect too much. "

So true, Larry. So true.

And what a shame that, of course, Prucha and Valiquette's really solid all around efforts will be lost in yet one more game where their flailing PP lost them a game. And not like they had anything really to do about it. Ideally, a goalie should not be so tested on his team's own PP. And ideally the only guy on this team that has recently scored 16 PP goals in a year, should really be on it.

Sense? Nah, we don't play with sense in Rangerland.



Sad News:

-It's been commented upon, and granted I was a little late to pick up on it, but the news is no less sad today. A tragedy really.

http://tsn.ca/canadian_hockey/story/?id=261626&lid=headline&lpos=topStory_canadian_hockey

If all players, everywhere, have to tighten helmets so this does not happen, so be it. A small price to pay.

Rest in Peace, Don Sanderson. You never like to hear of things like this happening, and hopefully we never will again.

Is This Rock Bottom. . .?

And I'm not talking about the Rangers team, when I ask that. I'm talking about me and my love/hate relationship with this team. Has that hit an all time low? Is it possible for me to compare my thoughts now to my thoughts the last time I was so indifferent to my team (1997 post-Messier, for those of you keeping track). I guess it would be near impossible to do so.

But I must be honest in that last night, for the second time in the month of December, I watched the Rangers play the team I am supposed to hate the MOST, and I couldn't really care less that my team was losing to them.

Losing.

I'd be hard pressed to say they were even skating!

Credit the Devils. They scored a short-handed goal - the Rangers league-leading 11th allowed on the year. Frankly, they walked all over the Rangers. And the Rangers let them.

I love the "concern" and "uproar" from the locker room after this most recent collapse - 3 straight losses and not a sign in hope of the ship being righted. But now the team is like, yeah, well this most recent game, that was unacceptable.

Please.

As if the Washington collapse less than a week ago was any less cause for concern?

The 4-0 loss at home to Florida (yes, Florida) on Kid's Day?

The Florida trip where two tying goals were allowed late in the game to force OT and then the shootout?

The trip to Montreal on the Habs 100th anniversary night where they were embarassed?

The 8-5 diabacle at the Rock earlier this month?

The countless games where the Rangers either failed to score more than two goals, or went down two goals early and had to scramble to tie and win in a shootout?

No. No. None of these were causes for concern.

But all of a sudden, people are thinking, jee, am I safe? Are their going to be changes in personnel?

No, it would seem, the political king of playing favorites coach, - he thinks it will magically be fixed from within.

Sure.

Great.

We're waiting.

And have been since the happy team returned from Prague.

I'm sorry. This is more a rant that I intended it to be.

I am just confused about a few things.

Paul Mara, who I like a lot and has certainly been one of the best defensemen this year, said he'd hate for their to be changes, only because this is the "best group of guys he's ever worked with."

Larry Brooks made me crack up reading the NY Post today, with his response which is:

"They are a vanilla team three months away from the handholding club that sang Kumbaya in Bern and Prague. It's nice that the team has bonded and that everyone does everything together off the ice. Why, they can put that right in their high school yearbooks."

And later, after rattling off stat after stat for why this team has little to be proud of says:

"But they like each other! They really like each other! "

Sarcastic? - yes. But damn, damn true.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282008/sports/rangers/rangers_screaming_out_for_avery_146193.htm

This team is vanilla, and even though young Steve Stamkos and I both like vanilla ice cream, for our hockey teams - we expect much more.

Brooks talked about how Avery got to NY, and joined a team very familiar to this one - although I do not and cannot think that the team even though lackluster and losing when Sean arrived, was anywhere near as boring and hard to tolerate as these mediocre group of best friends. And then how Sean turned it around.

I will not - yet - make a comment on this. Avery. Returning. Avery anything. Yet.

But the point is made.

This team needs something.

I love that they love each other. I really do. But there is something drastically wrong with the team when they:

Play so horribly.

Play so horrifically boring that their long time fans don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Skate like they are at Rockefeller Center or the Ice Capades.

Their fans hope the head coach gets knocked unconscious on the bench (again) by an errant puck or stick.

Causes for concern?

They are for me, guys. They are for me.

**Authors Note: The Rangers "political king of playing favorites" coach. More on this another day, I promise; but I'll give you a day or two to think about what type of mediocre/overpaid North American players get breaks from our Western Canadian coach and what European players do not get breaks from our Western Canadian coach. And if anytihng had anything to do with anything."

Also, as for those of you wondering why Prucha didn't play. It probably had nothing to do with the maybe-Orr-has-the-flu or not. Renney had the flu Friday when he used Prucha for more than dummy defense at practice, went to bed, woke up better, realized he hated him, and, well, you get the picture. Because, again, Prucha is obviously - from the locker room - the reason this team is one loss closer to complete and utter disarray. A fancy win to fix it? No. No. All wins do is hide what is so fundamentally wrong here. That's why I'm not going to cry that they lose.



Lastly, I will be a way for a few days. I will probably miss the game tomorrow. I will probably not be disappointed.

Everyone, Happy Happy and Healthy New Year!! :)

Another Plea For Petr Prucha. . .

And this time, not even from me.

Larry Brooks, for a second time this season, devoted an entire article in the NY Post to Petr Prucha and the mystery that surrounds his not playing for the Rangers.

When he should be.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12262008/sports/rangers/rangers_cannot_afford_to_sit_prucha_145901.htm

Face it. There is no reason - hockey related - why this player is not in the lineup. He can be no worse than at least half the players currently in it. And when given the chance to be in it, he has proven to be much more useful than more than half of those players currently taking up roster spots.

Brooks chooses to take Aaron Voros and Fredrick Sjostrom as examples. Now I like them both, to a degree, but I see his points.

Voros, the guy who was happily celebrating with Dubinsky and Zherdev to start the season, has disappeared. Now whether or not that is a natural dip in production or the fact that Renney tinkered with his linemates at the wrong moments, not sure. But he's hardly been effective in the last, well, couple months now.

Sjostrom, Brooks argues, is in the lineup more for his PK ability, which is important, no doubt, and his shootout abilities. Do not get me started, however, on the fact that when Dawes is in the lineup, more often than not, he is also a 3rd threat on the shootout. Naslund, Zherdev - those are your best guys, along with Sjostrom. But Dawes and even Drury have been effective. So that can't be the only reason. In Renney's case, I absolutely believe it is his lame excuse ,but it shouldn't be.

You know, funny thing, but a certain guy back 3 years ago was a great shoot-out performer for the Rangers. Shortish, skinny Czech guy with a great fake out and a brilliant smile. Yeah, that guy. He won more than a handful of games for the Rangers in the 5th period.

Regardless of who you pin it on - Sjostrom, Voros, or others - there are numerous players not earning their ice time for NY. That's a fact. There are certain ones that, thanks to Glennie baby, the Rangers are rather stuck with, or rather choose to continue to stick themselves with. But ther are other guys, like those mentioned above or some others, that certainly can take a seat in favor of Prucha coming into the lineup.

Have you seen what has happened so far this season - low scoring, no energy, boring one way hockey? Have you seen the play of the team that was not stellar, somehow get even less so?

Tell me how Prucha can possibly make the situation worse?

He can't. He simply can't.

The only way he shouldn't be playing is if he is inserted into the lineup and his gaffs, his personal gaffs, cost the Rangers to lose every game.

I just don't see how that's possible.

Thank you, Larry, for trying just one more time to stir up the Prucha debate in hopes of getting this kid playing. Whether in NY, in the Western Conference, or for Marty Straka's team in Plizen, he should play.

If he went to play with Marty, I would cry, because he would become just one more Rangers player of Czech origin to shine here and then be cast back out to his home country, but at least I know he'd be taken care of and cared for.

Most ironically in this, I spent a few days before viewing the games in Prague that I missed earlier this season - again for reasons beyond my control. And I watched, and I listened.

Despite the hurtful ignorance that originally had Prucha the odd man out, he did play, both games. And repeatedly it was mentioned how GREAT the line of Prucha, Korpikoski, and Callahan played.

Prucha and Callahan saw success with Dubinsky before - the line was great in January of 2008, so I was not suprised by that.

Even better. Prucha, a left wing, played in Prague - you guessed it - left wing. I'm sure he felt more natural. And the line was fast, forechecked like madmen and consistently kept the puck in Tampa Bay's zone.

They even got consistent time on the, wait for it.

Power play.

Yep. Both games. Not the first unit, but the second. And while they did not score, damn the so many times came close. (Miles closer than the Rangers moronic power play has come since).

When Dubinsky was asked after the first game in Prague what he thought, his first words were "the Korpikoski line played great."

Everyone said so.

Everyone saw it.

Yet they came back from Europe and Sjostrom went in (never to come out again, right?) and Prucha became odd man out.

Callahan continued his tempo, although not really scoring.

Korpikoski, with the exception of the two games he played with Dawes and Dan Fristche, has not looked as sharp as he did in Prague. At all.

Hell, the team has not looked as sharp as they did in Prague.

They were fast. Up-tempo. Forechecking. And fun.

Wanna get angrier?

Plenty of people lied to start the season. I don't know what upsets me more. Renney on how he'd look at and treat Petr Prucha. Redden on how he was looking forward to playing in NYC and continuing to be effective. Gomez on what the NY Rangers team would do.

Renney said Prucha would get every time and opportunity to play real minute and have a real role on this team because he's "very important" to the team and "such a good solider."

BS!

Wade Redden looked comfortable and poised in his post-game interview after game one, saying how he couldn't wait to continue the same in NY, after a goal and an assist.

Haven't seen him look anything close to comfortable or poised since then.

BS!

As for Gomez, you might have missed that one. What, you don't remember? Well allow me to refresh your memory.

After the second consequtive 2-1 win over Tampa Bay in Prague, Gomez said:

"Fans of New York should get used to this effort every night." We are going to be a "hard working" team, rolling "four lines." This is "how we are going to win" and this is "how we are going to play."

I heard that last week and said, wow, that is such:

BS!


I love this team. I'll always love them. But right now, they are hard to love.

There are a bunch of nice guys in the NY media, I'm sure, but only one is really willing to step up and say what everyone else is afraid to challenge and that's been Larry Brooks.

This team has been lucky. Their record is not a fair reflection of how they played.

Games like those against Toronto, against Montreal, against New Jersey, at home against Florida, and at home most recently against Washington, are clear reflections of this team not being capable of holding down a lead, playing with conviction, or being held responsible for their actions - GOOD or BAD.

It's embarassing, and it's disgusting.

And for the coach and the GM to not take the very able and very ready option they have literally wasting away in the locker room every game, says volumes about what brilliant hockey minds they are not.

One more plea for the young #25, who deserves to smile once more. Trade him, waive him, play him.

And if you are asking those 18,200 that stood and cheered on December 3rd, and those countless others that support him and want what's best for him -

We vote he should PLAY.

Play in New York, on LEFT WING, with what few players in the lineup do skate, do show effort, do come to play. And see what happens.

You might just be pleasantly surprised.

Will I be?

No. I know better. I know the good they have, the good they are apparently either too blind or too stubborn to see.



Note Brook's article from Wednesday:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12242008/sports/rangers/rangers_blow_4_0_lead__fall_in_ot_145715.htm