Consensus is the Rangers general manager Glen Sather made the smart and responsible move in not giving into the inexplicably high demands by the Columbus Blue Jackets for perennial 30 goal 65 point man Rick Nash. There is no doubt about the talents of Nash and what they could have done for this year's Ranger team. The guy can flat out score. He has a high quality shot, premier size and by escaping the purgatory that is Columbus Blue Jacket hockey, he would likely play his heart out down the stretch.
Nevertheless, there are three main reasons why Sather's decision not to make the trade for Nash was the smart one.
1) The Price - Ultimately, this is, in fact, what stopped the trade from being made. While a very good player, Nash neither has the stats nor the proven leadership abilities to garner a package that included Ryan McDonough or Michael Del Zotto, Derek Stepan or Carl Hagelin, Brandon Dubinsky, top prospect Chris Kreider and a 1st round pick, which according to New York Post writer Larry Brooks was the asking price for Nash. While that trade would have been absurd to anyone who has watched this year's Rangers team and what they seem capable of, looking at Sather's history and his penchant for trying to acquire the Big Fish, I have no doubt Sather considered the high demand by Columbus.
2) Nash's Cap Hit - This is not your father's NHL. With the hard salary cap in place and the upcoming CBA negotiations, there is so much more that comes into play during trade discussions than the abilities of the players involved. In reality, you are only as good as you are, relative to your cap hit. This is especially true with a team like the Rangers that has no issue handing out big contracts and therefore generally gets less bang for their buck. At 7.8 million for many more years, Nash has the fourth highest cap hit in the NHL. Nash has never scored 80 points and has a career plus/minus of -75. His cap hit is higher than Malkin, the Sedins, Toews, Stamkos, Perry, Backstrom, Datsyuk, Giroux and everyone else in the league not named Crosby, Ovechkin or Eric Staal. For a cap hit of that magnitude for a player with Nash's production, Columbus has no business demanding from the Rangers what they did. Nash's cap hit makes him less valuable than he already is. This is something GMs fail to see; you aren't just trading Rick Nash, you are trading for his bloated contract as well.
3) The "He Is the Best Player on a Bad Team in a Small Market so He Must Be Underrated So Much So That He Becomes Overrated" Syndrome - This idea takes hold in many sports. A guy plays for a bad team for years and puts up great numbers. He isn't really publicized much in the national media and his team's games are rarely nationally televised. He is a former 1st overall pick. He is flashy. He scores highlight real goals. He is a hulking winger. He has no talent around him which accounts for his low assist totals. And so on. All of these play into the media making Nash out to be a star in the NHL when his true stats do not back up that idea. He has been viewed as a figure stuck in a bad situatioon in Columbus all the while his "stock" has risen while his talents have not.
Don't get me wrong, I would love Nash on the Rangers. But for that price and for that cap hit, I''ll pass.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Should the Rangers Make a Big Splash at the Deadline or Not?
There comes a time when every general manager ("GM"), no matter what sport, has to decide whether to be a buyer or seller at the trade deadline. That question usually answers itself depending on where a team sits in the standings. Once that answer is clear, as it is with this year's Ranger team, (with the most points in the East, they are obviously buyers) a GM, Glen Sather in the Rangers' case, must decide whether to truly shake things up and go for the Cup or to stand pat and be comfortable enough with his current roster to tweak a bit and nothing more.
What Sather decides to do before the trade deadline will likely determine whether the Rangers make a deep run in the playoffs or whether they fall meekly in the first or second round. This Rangers team is clearly a close bunch with one specific purpose and one ideal. Play for each other and play hard. Any move to acquire a big-time scorer will likely cost the team at least one primary player off the current roster and a high end prospect and/or draft pick. Sather should not do it. He should go out and tweak, maybe upgrade any position where injuries could play a factor, but nothing more.
This team is not the 94' Stanley Cup winning Rangers. That team had all-time greats, many players who though past their prime still did enough to contribute. The Rangers sacrificed perhaps 10 years of competitiveness for that grasp at the Cup and thankfully they won. In the process though, they gave up two players Doug Weight and Tony Amonte, who would have been first liners on the team for another decade. That team had been close to the Cup before. Two seasons before raising the Cup, the Messier led team won the President's trophy for most points in the league and had they gotten past Lemieux and Jagr they would very likely have won in 92'. Two years later, it was clear to Neil Smith who and what was needed to make a deep playoff run. He saw who failed two years earlier and he saw what caused that team's downfall. He traded scorer Mike Gartner and replaced him with veteran grit and acquired other veteran types to supplement the stars he had in Messier, Leetch, Zubov and Graves.
Back to my main point. Not to take anything away from the 11'-12' incarnation of the Rangers, but they are not the 94' Rangers. First of all, they have not been close before. This team has won 4 playoff games in the last 3 seasons. Many of the primary players have one year of playoff experience. There is no way to tell at this point who will be the Brad Marchand of this year's playoffs. This team will not be the most skilled in the playoffs but it will likely be the hardest working. They will live and die though with the goaltending of Lundqvist. Because Sather does not know how this team will respond in the playoffs, he owes it to the growth of the team and the organization to stand pat this year as Neil Smith did in 92' in order to determine what this team needs to go far going forward. With the small window that exists in the current NHL salary cap era, it could be considered dangerous not to take advantage of a team as successful as this year's Rangers. The fact is though, nearly all the important players on this year's team are signed for next season and if we are to believe that the "kids" as management likes to call them, are for real, then Sather owes this team a shot at the Cup without making a big splash at the deadline. There is next year for this team and it will be advantageous in the long-term for the Rangers to stand pat like they did in 92' in order to build toward 94'.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Legend of Tom Brady
Taking a break from the Rangers I felt like I had to write about the Giants win over the Patriots in some way. I have heard non-stop talk and analysis about what this loss does to the legacy of Tom Brady and it has got me thinking.
Driving to school yesterday I heard the following statements on the radio; "Joe Montana went 3-0, Brady is now 3-2, so there is no question Montana was the greater quarterback." "Brady is turning into Jim Kelly." "Brady can't perform under pressure." You get the point.
Driving to school yesterday I heard the following statements on the radio; "Joe Montana went 3-0, Brady is now 3-2, so there is no question Montana was the greater quarterback." "Brady is turning into Jim Kelly." "Brady can't perform under pressure." You get the point.
Every sports talking head, journalist, commentator, analyst and even Gisele have their opinion as to what yet another Patriots loss to the Giants in the Super Bowl ("SB") will do to Brady's legend and where it puts him in the history of great quarterbacks.
There is no single game in professional sports that makes or breaks a legend like the Super Bowl does. That being true, it takes a hell of a lot to get to a single SB . Take that single Super Bowl and multiply it by 5 and you have the amount of SBs Brady has been to. Just ask Dan Marino how tough it is to return there. Marino lost in the SB his rookie season and never made it back. The idea that the 3 Brady SB wins have been tarnished by losing twice in the SB to the same team is perplexing. Shouldn't he get kudos for just getting there at all? Montana may not have lost a SB but he did lose to the Giants in the NFC championship game. Did that change his legend? No.
It's amusing to me as someone who isn't a Patriots fan that Brady's success subsequent to his 3rd SB has actually produced his downfall. Had he and Belichick taken bows after beating the Panthers in 2005 and run off into the limelight they would have been lauded forever as invincible. But they were greedy. They wanted more. Going 18-1 actually hurt Brady more than going 0-16 would have. The legend of Brady would be stronger if Lee Evans had held onto the ball in the endzone or if Billy Cundiff had made the field goal in the AFC Championship and the Ravens had won in OT.
It obviously is unrealistic and idiotic to suggest Brady and Belicheck should have stopped while they were ahead. It is also idiotic to suggest that losing a SB should change the status of a 3 time SB winner. Looking at the history of pro sports is the best way to get a handle on understanding this and to tell whether this is a unique situation or not.
It obviously is unrealistic and idiotic to suggest Brady and Belicheck should have stopped while they were ahead. It is also idiotic to suggest that losing a SB should change the status of a 3 time SB winner. Looking at the history of pro sports is the best way to get a handle on understanding this and to tell whether this is a unique situation or not.
In looking to find the greatest players in professional sports who had the same kind of downfall, I struggled to come up with anyone in the same kind of circumstance. Wayne Gretzky won 4 Stanley Cups with the Oilers and lost his 5th shot at the Cup when the Canadiens defeated the Kings in the 93' final. Gretzky's numbers were so far superior to the rest of the sport that it had no effect on his greatness or place in history. Michael Jordan won all the finals he went to. No single position in baseball comes close to the importance of a quarterback.
The answer cannot be found in team sports. I reached the conclusion that in professional sports there is one situation analogous to Brady v. Eli or Brady v. The Giants; Roger Federer v Rafael Nadal.
Roger Federer is a legend in Tennis. He is arguably the greatest male tennis player ever. But Rafael Nadal has put a dent if not a hole in that legend. Federer had over 10 major wins before Nadal won a major tournament outside the French Open. During the height of his career, Federer beat everyone, every time, except Nadal. At first, Federer would only lose to Nadal on clay at the French Open. More recently, Nadal has moved that dominance onto other surfaces. Looking closer at the Brady v. Eli/Giants comparison to Federer v. Nadal, there are some crazy similarities.
Though one plays in a team sport and the other does not, Brady IS the Patriots. He plays by far the most important position and 9 out of 10 times a QB will be a Super Bowl MVP. Federer obviously plays for himself.
Federer was in the process of becoming a legend before Nadal, a highly touted young player, became a contender on the tennis scene. Brady had already won two Super Bowls when Eli came into the league as a highly touted draft pick.
Federer and Brady beat everyone. They did not lose; except to Eli and Nadal. Nadal and Eli have not yet eclipsed Federer and Brady, but they are sure getting close. Despite his injuries and the new presence of Novak Jokavic, Nadal is racking up major titles. At 31, Eli should have 5 or 6 top years ahead of him and with the Giants management as good as it gets, the idea Eli could tie or surpass Brady's 3 SB wins is a distinct possibility.
While Federer holds the major title record, his aura has dissipated recently and his legendary status has come into question. If he can't beat Nadal then how is he the best of all time, or even the best of his generation no matter how many times he wins? If Brady can't beat Eli and the Giants how can he be the best of his generation no matter how many times he wins?
By continuing to beat everyone on the way to semifinals and finals at majors, Federer put himself in a position to be beaten by Nadal on the biggest stage many times. Had Federer begun to lose in earlier rounds to lesser opponents, his legend would not have taken near the hit. He could have had numerous excuses. Getting older, injuries, you name it. But by continuing to beat everyone except for Nadal, Federer showed he still "had it" but just couldn't keep up with Nadal. He put himself and his legendary place in tennis history in question.
The same holds true with Brady. He didn't do it like John Elway. Elway spent the majority of his career coming up short and losing in big games. He managed to pull it together and win SBs in his last two seasons and he is now a "winner."
I disagree with everyone who says that the 2 Brady SB losses should change the way he is perceived and analyzed. If anything, Brady should be lauded for making it back to the Super Bowl so many times. He has made 5 SBs in 11 years. Off the top of my head, in recent memory only the Atlanta Braves of the 90s, the Yankees of the late 90s and early 00's and the recent Lakers teams can make that claim. (Unfortunately, we all know how that turned out for the Braves).
The problem with success is that it puts a target on your back. Rather than being the predator, you become the prey and that is never a good look for a legend. That is the new unfair reality for Brady. Wrong as it is, public perception says that losing in the SB is worse for your reputation than not making the playoffs at all. It's losing on the biggest stage. The SB gave Brady his legendary status by enabling hundreds of millions of people to watch him succeed. And now it has taken away much of what it gave him. After those 3 championships, those hundreds of millions have now watched him fail, twice, against the same opponent. Ultimately, as backwards and irrational as it is, Brady's success has actually casued his legend to fall and turned a football "god" into merely great player.
Though one plays in a team sport and the other does not, Brady IS the Patriots. He plays by far the most important position and 9 out of 10 times a QB will be a Super Bowl MVP. Federer obviously plays for himself.
Federer was in the process of becoming a legend before Nadal, a highly touted young player, became a contender on the tennis scene. Brady had already won two Super Bowls when Eli came into the league as a highly touted draft pick.
Federer and Brady beat everyone. They did not lose; except to Eli and Nadal. Nadal and Eli have not yet eclipsed Federer and Brady, but they are sure getting close. Despite his injuries and the new presence of Novak Jokavic, Nadal is racking up major titles. At 31, Eli should have 5 or 6 top years ahead of him and with the Giants management as good as it gets, the idea Eli could tie or surpass Brady's 3 SB wins is a distinct possibility.
While Federer holds the major title record, his aura has dissipated recently and his legendary status has come into question. If he can't beat Nadal then how is he the best of all time, or even the best of his generation no matter how many times he wins? If Brady can't beat Eli and the Giants how can he be the best of his generation no matter how many times he wins?
By continuing to beat everyone on the way to semifinals and finals at majors, Federer put himself in a position to be beaten by Nadal on the biggest stage many times. Had Federer begun to lose in earlier rounds to lesser opponents, his legend would not have taken near the hit. He could have had numerous excuses. Getting older, injuries, you name it. But by continuing to beat everyone except for Nadal, Federer showed he still "had it" but just couldn't keep up with Nadal. He put himself and his legendary place in tennis history in question.
The same holds true with Brady. He didn't do it like John Elway. Elway spent the majority of his career coming up short and losing in big games. He managed to pull it together and win SBs in his last two seasons and he is now a "winner."
I disagree with everyone who says that the 2 Brady SB losses should change the way he is perceived and analyzed. If anything, Brady should be lauded for making it back to the Super Bowl so many times. He has made 5 SBs in 11 years. Off the top of my head, in recent memory only the Atlanta Braves of the 90s, the Yankees of the late 90s and early 00's and the recent Lakers teams can make that claim. (Unfortunately, we all know how that turned out for the Braves).
The problem with success is that it puts a target on your back. Rather than being the predator, you become the prey and that is never a good look for a legend. That is the new unfair reality for Brady. Wrong as it is, public perception says that losing in the SB is worse for your reputation than not making the playoffs at all. It's losing on the biggest stage. The SB gave Brady his legendary status by enabling hundreds of millions of people to watch him succeed. And now it has taken away much of what it gave him. After those 3 championships, those hundreds of millions have now watched him fail, twice, against the same opponent. Ultimately, as backwards and irrational as it is, Brady's success has actually casued his legend to fall and turned a football "god" into merely great player.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Glen Sather's Best and Worst Moves Since the Lockout
Not being the biggest Glen Sather fan I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt with this season's great first half. Nevertheless, I have read a number of articles the past few years on his worst moves as GM and now want to give my own take on his 4 best and 4 worst trades or free agent signings since the lockout.
Please feel free to comment, argue, or complain.
The 4 Best
2) Signing Dan Girardi
Though he played for the Rangers minor league team during the lockout, Girardi was not signed to an NHL deal until the summer of 2006. Whoever found this guy off the scrap heap that is undrafted free agents, deserves a promotion. Girardi is the epitome of consistency, durability and heart. He may not be the greatest hockey player but he does all the small things right and is as reliable as almost anyone in the league on defense. Even his offense has picked up the last couple of seasons. He has shown this year in Marc Staal's absence that he is the force behind stopping opposing teams top lines. He is the longest tenured Ranger aside from Lundqvist and I wish at some point (it's not going to happen) they take the A off of Staal and give it to Girardi.
4) Trading Jason Ward, Marc-Andre Cliche and a 3rd round pick to LA for Sean Avery
This one goes back to the earlier post-lockout days. I remember sitting at a Ranger game and my brother texted me that they had made this trade and gotten Avery. It seemed to make sense at the time considering the team at that time lacked much grit with the core players being Jagr, Nylander and Straka. I don't think anyone could have predicted the impact Avery would end up having. When given the opportunity, Avery was able to blossom and given the right care and handling he was able to be a hugely impactful player. Though it's clear that Tom Renney utilized Avery far better than John Tortorella who it can be argued did not give Avery a fair shot, no one can deny the impact this trade had on the organization.
The 4 Worst
As these deals happened the same day and were done in conjunction with one another I'm taking the liberty of considering them one move for my purposes. It seems everyone is a second-guesser when it comes to these deals as I don't really remember anyone complaining after Sather managed to sign both these guys on that ill-fated July 1st, 2007 day. These horrendous signings are compunded with the fact that they meant the de facto departure of Michael Nylander and disruption of what had been a highly effective couple of years on the Rangers for Jaromir Jagr. These moves are not ranked number 1 for the sole reason that Sather managed to get out from under these deals before their terms were over. He managed to turn the Gomez signing into a positive (as seen above) and benefited from buying out Drury before his contract expired. Without that help, there would likely be no Brad Richards of Marian Gaborik on the Rangers and the makeup of the team would not be promising. Imagine if Gomez and Drury were still on the team. Over 14 million dollars, over 14 million dollars, over 14 million dollars. Over 14 million is the combined cap hit of the Drury and Gomez contracts. That's about 1/4 of the entire salary cap. Disaster was averted but even so these deals did set the organization back a couple of years and hurt their ability to be true contenders for a number of seasons.
Again, feel free to comment as I'm sure eveyone has their own opinion on this topic.
Please feel free to comment, argue, or complain.
The 4 Best
1) Trading Scott Gomez to Montreal and Tom Pyatt for Chris Higgins, Ryan McDonough and Pavel Valentenko
Talk about cleaning up your own mess. Sather took one of his worst moves as GM in signing Gomez to a monstrous long-term deal and turned the Gomez signing into a huge plus. People seem to forget that Gomez had a pretty strong first year with the Rangers. Clearly the experiment playing with Jagr didn't work but his line with Shanahan and Avery played a pivotal role in getting the team to the second round of the playoffs. The second year though was pretty bad and obviously not worth what they were paying him.
And SOMEHOW, Sather turned this into a positive. I'm not the first person to point this out but I still have no clue what former Habs GM Bob Gainey was thinking during the Summer of 2009. With players like Marian Gaborik and Marian Hossa going on the free agent market among others, Gainey was willing to take Scott Gomez and the cap hit that came with him off of Sather's hands.
And if only Gainey had taken Gomez from the Rangers for a mid-round draftpick it would have been a steal for the Rangers. Yet SOMEHOW Gainey agreed to add former first round pick and now the Rangers number 2 defenseman this year to the trade. WOW.
One more thing, what were the Rangers able to do with the 7 million saved by trading Gomez? They were able to sign Marian Gaborik who without that 7 million saved from the Gomez deal would be playing somewhere else.
There is still no way for Gainey to justify this trade or his thought process in making it. Justification from Gainey or not, this trade had MAJOR postive ramifications for the Rangers and is easily Sather's best since the lockout.
And SOMEHOW, Sather turned this into a positive. I'm not the first person to point this out but I still have no clue what former Habs GM Bob Gainey was thinking during the Summer of 2009. With players like Marian Gaborik and Marian Hossa going on the free agent market among others, Gainey was willing to take Scott Gomez and the cap hit that came with him off of Sather's hands.
And if only Gainey had taken Gomez from the Rangers for a mid-round draftpick it would have been a steal for the Rangers. Yet SOMEHOW Gainey agreed to add former first round pick and now the Rangers number 2 defenseman this year to the trade. WOW.
One more thing, what were the Rangers able to do with the 7 million saved by trading Gomez? They were able to sign Marian Gaborik who without that 7 million saved from the Gomez deal would be playing somewhere else.
There is still no way for Gainey to justify this trade or his thought process in making it. Justification from Gainey or not, this trade had MAJOR postive ramifications for the Rangers and is easily Sather's best since the lockout.
2) Signing Dan Girardi
Though he played for the Rangers minor league team during the lockout, Girardi was not signed to an NHL deal until the summer of 2006. Whoever found this guy off the scrap heap that is undrafted free agents, deserves a promotion. Girardi is the epitome of consistency, durability and heart. He may not be the greatest hockey player but he does all the small things right and is as reliable as almost anyone in the league on defense. Even his offense has picked up the last couple of seasons. He has shown this year in Marc Staal's absence that he is the force behind stopping opposing teams top lines. He is the longest tenured Ranger aside from Lundqvist and I wish at some point (it's not going to happen) they take the A off of Staal and give it to Girardi.
3) Signing Marian Gaborik
Many pundits scoffed at the idea of Sather signing the oft-injured Gaborik to a 5 year 35 million dollar deal after the 08-09 season. I liked the move at the time but was wary of Gabby's injury history. He was the best pure scorer on the market so it was worth a shot. Though last season, his second on Broadway, was injury-riddled and inconsistent, the first and third seasons that sandwich season two have proven Gaborik is the real deal and Sather made out outstandingly well in signing him.
Many pundits scoffed at the idea of Sather signing the oft-injured Gaborik to a 5 year 35 million dollar deal after the 08-09 season. I liked the move at the time but was wary of Gabby's injury history. He was the best pure scorer on the market so it was worth a shot. Though last season, his second on Broadway, was injury-riddled and inconsistent, the first and third seasons that sandwich season two have proven Gaborik is the real deal and Sather made out outstandingly well in signing him.
4) Trading Jason Ward, Marc-Andre Cliche and a 3rd round pick to LA for Sean Avery
This one goes back to the earlier post-lockout days. I remember sitting at a Ranger game and my brother texted me that they had made this trade and gotten Avery. It seemed to make sense at the time considering the team at that time lacked much grit with the core players being Jagr, Nylander and Straka. I don't think anyone could have predicted the impact Avery would end up having. When given the opportunity, Avery was able to blossom and given the right care and handling he was able to be a hugely impactful player. Though it's clear that Tom Renney utilized Avery far better than John Tortorella who it can be argued did not give Avery a fair shot, no one can deny the impact this trade had on the organization.
The 4 Worst
1) Signing Wade Redden
Ugh. Even in exile in Connecticut Redden continues to make those of us who are Cablevision subscribers pay higher fees. Sather gave Redden a huge 6 year contract at about 6 million a year after a number of down years with the hope that the new surroundings would rejuvenate Redden and return him to the days when he was a top defenseman. Boy was Sather wrong. The inventor and founder of what we at the Rotenberg house like to call "The Wade Redden School of Defense" ("TWRSD"), Redden floundered with the Rangers (TWRSD teaches that rather than attempting to defend by hitting the opposition or blocking passing or shooting lanes, defenseman should go to their knees or slide across the slot to screen the goalie with the blind hope of blocking a shot or stopping a pass). Not only did Redden not return to his glory days in the league but Redden was actually worse. It makes you question whether or not Glen Sather actually watches players play before signing them. He played a timid defense and much of the time seemed either disinterested or scared. His offensive abilities, if he had any, were for the most part dormant. Had Redden been the Rangers 5th or 6th defenseman signed for 1.5 million then he could have been extremely useful but for the contract Sather gave him this becomes the worst move of Sather's tenure. This kind of move would cost many GMs their jobs but due to Jim Dolan's deep pockets and obvious deep trust of Sather, Sather was allowed to banish his mistake in the minors to avoid a crippling 6 million dollar cap hit for a marginal player.
Ugh. Even in exile in Connecticut Redden continues to make those of us who are Cablevision subscribers pay higher fees. Sather gave Redden a huge 6 year contract at about 6 million a year after a number of down years with the hope that the new surroundings would rejuvenate Redden and return him to the days when he was a top defenseman. Boy was Sather wrong. The inventor and founder of what we at the Rotenberg house like to call "The Wade Redden School of Defense" ("TWRSD"), Redden floundered with the Rangers (TWRSD teaches that rather than attempting to defend by hitting the opposition or blocking passing or shooting lanes, defenseman should go to their knees or slide across the slot to screen the goalie with the blind hope of blocking a shot or stopping a pass). Not only did Redden not return to his glory days in the league but Redden was actually worse. It makes you question whether or not Glen Sather actually watches players play before signing them. He played a timid defense and much of the time seemed either disinterested or scared. His offensive abilities, if he had any, were for the most part dormant. Had Redden been the Rangers 5th or 6th defenseman signed for 1.5 million then he could have been extremely useful but for the contract Sather gave him this becomes the worst move of Sather's tenure. This kind of move would cost many GMs their jobs but due to Jim Dolan's deep pockets and obvious deep trust of Sather, Sather was allowed to banish his mistake in the minors to avoid a crippling 6 million dollar cap hit for a marginal player.
2) Signing Chris Drury/Scott Gomez
As these deals happened the same day and were done in conjunction with one another I'm taking the liberty of considering them one move for my purposes. It seems everyone is a second-guesser when it comes to these deals as I don't really remember anyone complaining after Sather managed to sign both these guys on that ill-fated July 1st, 2007 day. These horrendous signings are compunded with the fact that they meant the de facto departure of Michael Nylander and disruption of what had been a highly effective couple of years on the Rangers for Jaromir Jagr. These moves are not ranked number 1 for the sole reason that Sather managed to get out from under these deals before their terms were over. He managed to turn the Gomez signing into a positive (as seen above) and benefited from buying out Drury before his contract expired. Without that help, there would likely be no Brad Richards of Marian Gaborik on the Rangers and the makeup of the team would not be promising. Imagine if Gomez and Drury were still on the team. Over 14 million dollars, over 14 million dollars, over 14 million dollars. Over 14 million is the combined cap hit of the Drury and Gomez contracts. That's about 1/4 of the entire salary cap. Disaster was averted but even so these deals did set the organization back a couple of years and hurt their ability to be true contenders for a number of seasons.
3) Signing Michael Roszival to a 4 year 20 million dollar deal
Does Glen Sather actually watch his team play? For probably two years prior to Rozsival signing this deal his play had slowly deteriorated. His confidence with the puck had become non-existent and he seemed be afraid to actually pull the trigger on shots. Roszival is clearly a nice guy and was integral part of the post-lockout team defense but re-signing him to such a deal the same offseason Sather gave Redden his contract was absurd. What did Sather get out of this deal? Wojtek Wolski, aka Phoenix's overpriced equivalent of Roszival.
Does Glen Sather actually watch his team play? For probably two years prior to Rozsival signing this deal his play had slowly deteriorated. His confidence with the puck had become non-existent and he seemed be afraid to actually pull the trigger on shots. Roszival is clearly a nice guy and was integral part of the post-lockout team defense but re-signing him to such a deal the same offseason Sather gave Redden his contract was absurd. What did Sather get out of this deal? Wojtek Wolski, aka Phoenix's overpriced equivalent of Roszival.
4) Signing Donald Brashear to a 2 year deal
Really? Forget the fiscal impact this deal had or didn't have. If you don't remember game 6 against the Caps in the playoffs the spring before the Rangers signed him, Brashear laid out Blair Betts on a what appeared to be a late hit that went unpenalized and surely played a role in the Rangers blowing a 3-1 series lead over the Caps. Sather then essentially invited Rangers public enemy number 1 to join the team. Thankfully, this marriage did not last very long and Brashear's relationship with the coaching staff quickly soured. He was sent packing for long-forgotten Todd White. Either way, the Brashear signing left pretty much everyone shaking their head.
Really? Forget the fiscal impact this deal had or didn't have. If you don't remember game 6 against the Caps in the playoffs the spring before the Rangers signed him, Brashear laid out Blair Betts on a what appeared to be a late hit that went unpenalized and surely played a role in the Rangers blowing a 3-1 series lead over the Caps. Sather then essentially invited Rangers public enemy number 1 to join the team. Thankfully, this marriage did not last very long and Brashear's relationship with the coaching staff quickly soured. He was sent packing for long-forgotten Todd White. Either way, the Brashear signing left pretty much everyone shaking their head.
Again, feel free to comment as I'm sure eveyone has their own opinion on this topic.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Cold War On Ice: Why Alex Ovechkin Is The Only Hope For Russian Hockey In America
Considering the recent three game suspension handed out to Alex Ovechkin I thought it would be as good a time as any to address the current state of Russians in the NHL.
I wrote many papers in college but one sticks out in my mind as my favorite. It was written for a class titled U.S. History Since WWII. The professor allowed us to choose a topic of our choice as long as it fit into the timeframe of the class. I decided to write the paper on the role politics plays in sports focusing on US-Soviet relations during the build up to the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid and the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow (those of you who aren't fans of history I promise this will focus on hockey, just give me a couple more lines on this). In a nutshell, the paper discussed the threat of boycotts by President Carter and General Secretary Brezhnev in the build up to both country's Olympic Games and addressed what the US hockey victory over the USSR did to boost morale in America during a tenuous period in our country's history. Throughout the paper I mentioned certain members of the United States hockey team. At the same time I didn't really delve too far, if at all, into the players on the USSR team.
I wrote many papers in college but one sticks out in my mind as my favorite. It was written for a class titled U.S. History Since WWII. The professor allowed us to choose a topic of our choice as long as it fit into the timeframe of the class. I decided to write the paper on the role politics plays in sports focusing on US-Soviet relations during the build up to the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid and the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow (those of you who aren't fans of history I promise this will focus on hockey, just give me a couple more lines on this). In a nutshell, the paper discussed the threat of boycotts by President Carter and General Secretary Brezhnev in the build up to both country's Olympic Games and addressed what the US hockey victory over the USSR did to boost morale in America during a tenuous period in our country's history. Throughout the paper I mentioned certain members of the United States hockey team. At the same time I didn't really delve too far, if at all, into the players on the USSR team.
Whether conscious or not, I don't think I focused on the USSR players because news media sources were given little access to these players and little was known about how the Soviet players interacted at that time. Yes, hockey fans know the names Tretiak, Mikhailov and Fetisov but during Communist Russia, the idea of Soviet athletes expressing themselves publicly and showing their personalities was frowned upon.
Toward the end of the 80's and the early 90's as the fall of the Soviet Empire began to take hold, there was an exodus of sorts by Russians making their way to the NHL after years of being forced to stay and play in the Soviet Union. Fedorov, Bure, and Kovalev to name a few, were among the earlier Soviets to come to play in the NHL. While their on ice success in the league to date cannot be questioned, many Russians, usually unfairly, have been labeled "enigmas" by the media and been criticized for lack of effort. At the same time, Swedes, Czechs and Finns alike seem to have had seamless transitions into the NHL and generally do not face the same type of scrutiny as Russian players.
As we look at the current state of Russians in the NHL today, has anything changed?
Largely, no.
We have Alex Ovechkin, the consensus most dynamic and exciting player in the league in the post-lockout era, moving in on two seasons of subpar play by his standards. His demeanor and the youthful exuberance he displayed early in his career has pretty much disappeared. The current most dynamic player in the league, Evgeny Malkin, is a different story. No matter his success in the league, Malkin has stayed out of the spotlight despite his enormous talent. Many in the media seem to think it's a product of the language barrier. Ovechkin grew up in Moscow, the son of international olympic athletes. On the other hand, Malkin grew up in the Southwestern Russian steel city of Magnitogorsk. Malkin has been in the league for six years now and though his skills have progressed his English has not advanced to a great extent, at least in public. As a consequence it is difficult for the public to truly get to know Malkin and difficult for him if not impossible for him to become an ambassador for Russian hockey.
(As an aside, if this topic interests you, I highly recommend a book by Dave King, a former NHL head coach who coached an 18 year old Malkin on his Magnitogorsk team in the Russian league in 2005-06. King gives a day-by-day account of his time as a Canadian-born coach in Russia. It's a well written and interesting story that gives great insight into Malkin and the psychology and history behind Russian hockey players. Here's a link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/King-Russia-Russian-Super-League/dp/0771095708/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327678036&sr=1-2 ).
Largely, no.
We have Alex Ovechkin, the consensus most dynamic and exciting player in the league in the post-lockout era, moving in on two seasons of subpar play by his standards. His demeanor and the youthful exuberance he displayed early in his career has pretty much disappeared. The current most dynamic player in the league, Evgeny Malkin, is a different story. No matter his success in the league, Malkin has stayed out of the spotlight despite his enormous talent. Many in the media seem to think it's a product of the language barrier. Ovechkin grew up in Moscow, the son of international olympic athletes. On the other hand, Malkin grew up in the Southwestern Russian steel city of Magnitogorsk. Malkin has been in the league for six years now and though his skills have progressed his English has not advanced to a great extent, at least in public. As a consequence it is difficult for the public to truly get to know Malkin and difficult for him if not impossible for him to become an ambassador for Russian hockey.
(As an aside, if this topic interests you, I highly recommend a book by Dave King, a former NHL head coach who coached an 18 year old Malkin on his Magnitogorsk team in the Russian league in 2005-06. King gives a day-by-day account of his time as a Canadian-born coach in Russia. It's a well written and interesting story that gives great insight into Malkin and the psychology and history behind Russian hockey players. Here's a link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/King-Russia-Russian-Super-League/dp/0771095708/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327678036&sr=1-2 ).
Running through other current Russian stars in the NHL, a common theme I see is their personality and how it is perceived in the media. Ilya Kovalchuk and Alex Semin are considered highly skilled forwards yet what they have in talent they lack in effort, defensive play and teamwork.
Then you have Pavel Datsyuk. Datsyuk has long been considered one of the most, if not the most, underrated player in the NHL. And yet, it is difficult to find a good sound byte from Datsyuk. It's possible he is just a naturally quiet and unassuming guy whether speaking in English or Russian. Either way, showing little emotion makes it difficult for the public to truly get to know him. Look at the All-Star Fantasy Draft this past Thursday. Datsyuk was selected first overall and was one of the few players interviewed. Despite this, if he has a marketable personality, we have yet to see it.
I don't put the blame entirely on Datsyuk or other Russian players who are unable to overcome the language barrier and adapt entirely into the North American NHL culture. There is no doubt in my mind that it is difficult to move to a new country when you are drafted at eighteen and expected to learn a new language while pursuing a career in professional hockey. Russia, for all its social advancements since Reagan tore down the Iron Curtain has not produced a high percentage of English speakers like many other European countries like Finland and the Czech Republic (I have spent time in Moscow, Helsinki and Prague and it is clear that even in the Russian capital it is significantly more difficult to find people speaking English when compared to Finland and the Czech Republic).
Now back to Ovechkin.
It may be unfair to put the burden of Russian hockey players in the NHL entirely on Ovechkin's shoulders. Unfair or not though, that burden is something Ovechkin must embrace to erase the decade's old reputation of Russian players. Ovechkin has the talent, personality and linguistic ability to change multiple generation's worth of negative perceptions about Russian hockey players. Unfortunately, right now Ovechkin is going the wrong way. He is becoming more introverted in his personality and showmanship and more extroverted in showing his frustrations and expressing his complaints.
Few would deny that a double standard exists between how the NHL media portrays Russians versus NHL players from other countries . This is a development that I think began during the Cold War and has never truly dissipated. While there are certainly gregarious and affable Russians in the NHL (Ilya Bryzgalov comes to mind), it remains difficult to truly know the personality and feelings of many of the Russians, first liners or fourth liners, despite hopes that the end of the Cold War would lead to an easy transition both off the ice as well as on it.
Ultimately, I believe the greatest hope to alleviate this problem is Ovechkin; if only he could return to the player and person he was earlier in his career. With the ascent of the KHL, which at this point I don't consider to be a legitimate threat to the NHL, and the upcoming 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, Ovechkin has a responsibility as a Russian and an NHLer to bridge the gap and try to change the longstanding negative perception of Russian players. In doing so, he would enable Russian NHLers to shed the label of "enigma" that has followed them around for decades.
Then you have Pavel Datsyuk. Datsyuk has long been considered one of the most, if not the most, underrated player in the NHL. And yet, it is difficult to find a good sound byte from Datsyuk. It's possible he is just a naturally quiet and unassuming guy whether speaking in English or Russian. Either way, showing little emotion makes it difficult for the public to truly get to know him. Look at the All-Star Fantasy Draft this past Thursday. Datsyuk was selected first overall and was one of the few players interviewed. Despite this, if he has a marketable personality, we have yet to see it.
I don't put the blame entirely on Datsyuk or other Russian players who are unable to overcome the language barrier and adapt entirely into the North American NHL culture. There is no doubt in my mind that it is difficult to move to a new country when you are drafted at eighteen and expected to learn a new language while pursuing a career in professional hockey. Russia, for all its social advancements since Reagan tore down the Iron Curtain has not produced a high percentage of English speakers like many other European countries like Finland and the Czech Republic (I have spent time in Moscow, Helsinki and Prague and it is clear that even in the Russian capital it is significantly more difficult to find people speaking English when compared to Finland and the Czech Republic).
Now back to Ovechkin.
It may be unfair to put the burden of Russian hockey players in the NHL entirely on Ovechkin's shoulders. Unfair or not though, that burden is something Ovechkin must embrace to erase the decade's old reputation of Russian players. Ovechkin has the talent, personality and linguistic ability to change multiple generation's worth of negative perceptions about Russian hockey players. Unfortunately, right now Ovechkin is going the wrong way. He is becoming more introverted in his personality and showmanship and more extroverted in showing his frustrations and expressing his complaints.
Few would deny that a double standard exists between how the NHL media portrays Russians versus NHL players from other countries . This is a development that I think began during the Cold War and has never truly dissipated. While there are certainly gregarious and affable Russians in the NHL (Ilya Bryzgalov comes to mind), it remains difficult to truly know the personality and feelings of many of the Russians, first liners or fourth liners, despite hopes that the end of the Cold War would lead to an easy transition both off the ice as well as on it.
Ultimately, I believe the greatest hope to alleviate this problem is Ovechkin; if only he could return to the player and person he was earlier in his career. With the ascent of the KHL, which at this point I don't consider to be a legitimate threat to the NHL, and the upcoming 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, Ovechkin has a responsibility as a Russian and an NHLer to bridge the gap and try to change the longstanding negative perception of Russian players. In doing so, he would enable Russian NHLers to shed the label of "enigma" that has followed them around for decades.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
One If By Land, Two If By Sea, Three If By Ice
I'm not a big fan of poetry but Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's famous line in the poem "Paul Revere's Ride", reflects the current situation the NHL bigwigs, Commissioner Gary Bettman, Chief Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly, and Director of Player Discipline Brendan Shanahan are in. In Longfellow's ode to Paul Revere, the poet describes the warning system used to alert Revere of an inevitable incoming attack by the British. Two lanterns were available. One lantern was to be raised if the British attacked by land and two lanterns were to be raised if they attacked by sea. The heads of the NHL are facing a problem not quite at the same level Paul Revere and the fledgling Americans faced back in 1775, but crucial to the growing success of the league nonetheless.
2) Remove the Trapezoid
3) Limit the Size of Goalie Equipment
4) Ban Fighting
The battle the league is facing comes from within the league itself and can be seen on the ice. The first part of the problem is well documented. It involves the growing number of head injuries to players, seemingly on a nightly basis. The main part of the problem though is more important, as it turns a basic league quandary into an all-out mess. After the lockout in 2005, the NHL brain trust felt the current brand of hockey had become too dull and slow to attract new fans. To use their language, there was too much "clutching and grabbing" and not enough scoring. To fix this "problem", the league instituted stricter rules to combat the holding and hooking that was slowing down the game. This consequently turned the NHL into a quicker-paced more fluid brand of hockey. This is partly the cause of the concussion epidemic.
In the post-lockout goal-scoring boom a new generation of fans came in droves and the league considered the new and improved rules a success. One thing they either ignored, didn't care about, or didn't plan for was what effect the new rules would have on player speed when it came to hitting, charging and body control. In response to these effects, the NHL has gone on a hunt to stomp out hits to the head while at the same time promoting speed, hitting and fighting. They have suspended players with no prior record for certain "dangerous" hits while maintaining the belief that faster speed has been great for the game and attracted more fans.
If anyone thought the disciplinary system could not become any more arbitrary and tedious after Colin Campbell stepped down as head of discipline; I would like you to meet Brendan Shanahan. Shanahan, the future hall of famer and one of my favorite post-lockout Rangers, took over as head of discipline early last summer and has turned the job into a show, with videos explaining all suspensions and stiff penalties for those willing to toe the line between a clean hit and a dirty hit. I feel bad for Shanahan, he has a no win job. Bettman claims concussion numbers are down; I'm not sure where he gets his information from. All I seem to hear about and read about is how players with no history of head injuries are now suffering from concussions or concussion-like symptoms. If the numbers are down as Bettman claims, then many, many players have been playing with concussions the past few seasons as opposed to sitting out (that's a whole other problem in and of itself and I have neither the time nor the interest to delve into it deeper).
If anyone thought the disciplinary system could not become any more arbitrary and tedious after Colin Campbell stepped down as head of discipline; I would like you to meet Brendan Shanahan. Shanahan, the future hall of famer and one of my favorite post-lockout Rangers, took over as head of discipline early last summer and has turned the job into a show, with videos explaining all suspensions and stiff penalties for those willing to toe the line between a clean hit and a dirty hit. I feel bad for Shanahan, he has a no win job. Bettman claims concussion numbers are down; I'm not sure where he gets his information from. All I seem to hear about and read about is how players with no history of head injuries are now suffering from concussions or concussion-like symptoms. If the numbers are down as Bettman claims, then many, many players have been playing with concussions the past few seasons as opposed to sitting out (that's a whole other problem in and of itself and I have neither the time nor the interest to delve into it deeper).
There will come a time when Commissioner Bettman will need to look in the mirror and ask why the disciplinary system isn't curbing concussions. When that time will be is hard to tell. Either way, it's pretty clear the players are incapable of entirely changing the way they play and I have a feeling that even those players like Matt Cooke, who seem to have changed their dirty ways, will eventually return to their earlier irresponsible selves and cause a head injury for another player.
I wouldn't have written this without at least suggesting some type of fix for the league. I propose four league-wide changes, some more radical than others.
1) Reinstitute the Pre-Lockout Clutching and Grabbing Rules
Opposition to this rule-change would likely be strong. The "consensus" among those involved in the NHL from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000's is that hockey had become low scoring and slow. Hooking, holding and interference was going unpenalized (as the Rangers were going through a decade of hell during most of that period I am probably not the greatest person to ask about how enjoyable watching the NHL was during that era). The NHL changed the rules after the lockout and penalized any type of hooking or holding. As the league continues to move further and further from the 2005 lockout, and new defensive systems are being put in place by coaches to defend faster and quicker opponents, I don't think there is that much of a difference between current and pre-lockout hockey. While the NHL may say otherwise regarding the new rules, as long as the league maintains its current advertising and marketing tactics it should be fine even if the speed of the game is slowed slightly. In addition, I have a feeling that the incessant discussion of suspensions and concussions will chase away more fans than allowing more hooking and holding and reinstituting the clutching and grabbing rules will.
2) Remove the Trapezoid
The trapezoid rule was instituted to keep goalies from playing the puck in the corners and thereby allowing for more scoring chances. It has not really caused that much change and would not be missed. Removing the trapezoid would also enable goalies to help out defensemen on dump-ins and put defensemen in fewer potentially dangerous situations.
3) Limit the Size of Goalie Equipment
This would be done to placate those who worry the reinstitution of the pre-lockout clutching and grabbing rules would hurt scoring. The change in goalie equipment does not need to be drastic but more oversight on the size of chest protectors and pads would certainly benefit scoring. The argument that the bigger the pads are, the safer the goalies are, is a flawed one. With today's advanced equipment technology, goalie equipment can be both light and highly protective.
4) Ban Fighting
The hypocrisy of promoting fighting, essentially boxing on skates, while at the same time trying to make the league safer with regard to head injuries borders on idiotic. Personally, I have no problem with fighting in the NHL, but I also have no particular allegiance to the spectacle. Banning fighting would have no effect on whether or not I watched or attended a game, and I doubt it would change the opinion of most if any fans of the game. I know no one who goes to games for the fighting. If the NHL office wants to truly effect change it needs to do something drastic that will permanently alter the mentality of players and give them a black and white rule to follow rather than the arbitrary suspension rules.
Right now for example, if Mike Rupp of the Rangers skates down the ice, asks Islander Matt Martin to fight and the players drop their gloves, Rupp may punch Martin in the head as hard as he can as many times as he can until the players tire and he and Martin will only be penalized five minutes apiece. They can then return to the game. On the other hand, if Rupp were to skate up the ice and check Martin into the boards with his shoulder but first make contact with Martin's head, accidentally or not, Rupp would likely be suspended anywhere from one to five games. The above example makes it hard to take the NHL seriously in their fight against concussions.
Right now for example, if Mike Rupp of the Rangers skates down the ice, asks Islander Matt Martin to fight and the players drop their gloves, Rupp may punch Martin in the head as hard as he can as many times as he can until the players tire and he and Martin will only be penalized five minutes apiece. They can then return to the game. On the other hand, if Rupp were to skate up the ice and check Martin into the boards with his shoulder but first make contact with Martin's head, accidentally or not, Rupp would likely be suspended anywhere from one to five games. The above example makes it hard to take the NHL seriously in their fight against concussions.
This a request to the league to be careful what they wish for. More scoring is nice and good as long as it fills the seats. What happens though, when radio and NHL shows become bogged down with talk of suspensions and concussions and people stop watching? Stop the problem before it truly interferes with the growth of the game. The attack against the league is coming from its own ice and its own arenas. Three lanterns are being raised and I hope Gary Bettman can see the warning.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
What Makes Lundqvist, Lundqvist
This is the first of hopefully many posts on the Rangers, the NHL or really anything that piques my interest in the world of hockey.
There is no better place to begin than with Henrik Lundqvist. His greatness is obvious at this point but I've always been curious about what makes a goalie, in this case Lundqvist, the amazing puckstopper that he is. I grew up playing goalie in ice hockey and still hold the position close to my heart. Because of that I find myself critiquing and analyzing each team's goalie when I attend games. I've been to many games over the past few years during college and law school and have seen many goalies play up close. To me, Henrik seems to do a number of things that few other goalies do.
Before I say what those things are, I should mention I was at MSG last night and in typical Rangers fashion they won 3-0. Whether it was the ineptitude of the Jets offense or the brilliance of Henrik (last night it was a good amount of both) I found myself particularly pulled in by Lundqvist's play last night.
Back to my main point. Lundqvist moves and reacts only when necessary to make a save. There are no excess movements and there is no overplaying shooters. If you watch as an opponent has the puck at the point or along the boards Lundqvist isnt entirely in the "goalie stance" that they teach goalies from a young age. He stands up, sometimes nearly upright, to get the greatest view of the shooter.
I have three ideas as to why this tactic works so well and gives Lundqvist an advantage over most other goalies. The first is his vision of the ice. Goalies who crouch and attempt to see "through" players are at a distinct disadvantage. Think about it. Attempting to see through and around a bunch of 6'3 220 pound hockey players in full equiptment can often be a recipe for disaster. Teams that are successfull create screens and traffic in front of the net. To combat this, a goalies vision and ability to see the ice is key. It enables goalies to see shots leave the sticks of opponents and thereby get a better view of the trajectory of the puck. By standing tall Henrik can see over many of the screens rather than needing to look around them or through them and can keep his angle rather than moving his body and losing the net.
The second idea as to why Lundqvist is as successful as he is is where he plays in the crease. It's no secret that Lundqvist plays deep in his crease, incredibly deep under NHL standards. Young goalies used to be taught to challenge shooters and to take away the angle of a shooter. As more young goalies began to emulate the innovative butterfly style made popular by Patrick Roy in the mid to late 80's butterfly goalies have become the norm and the standup style is pretty much extinct. The butterfly syle has allowed goalies to play deeper in the net. Nevertheless, I cannot remember a goalie who played or plays quite as deep in the net as Lundqvist (according to Lundqvist and his goalie coach he plays somewhat of a hybrid style between butterfly and standup). In a game of inches where a little tip can be the difference between a shot hitting the post and going in, an extra split-second can make a huge difference. By playing deep in his crease, Lundqvist has that extra moment to react to shots and deflections that can make all the difference between a good goalie and an elite one.
The final reason Lundqvist stands above the rest of the goalies in the NHL is his quickness and ability to limit his movements on the ice. Many goalies, even in the NHL, seem to have less than stellar control of their bodies when they make saves. Anders Lindback, the backup goalie for Nashville, comes to mind. Even Marty Biron, the Rangers backup goalie who has arguably been the best backup in the league this year can be seen out of position with his body facing the net after some commotion around the crease. Lundqvist though, is the epitome of motion-conservation. His saves often look the same because everything is uniform with him. He goes through the same motions during TV timeouts. He looks at times statuesque in his stance. He can do all of this because of his quickness and balance. Lundqvist is so quick and compact in making saves that he can do things other goalies can't. And while this type of brilliance isn't easy to pick out because of its "less movement is more" characteristic it enables Lundqvist to dominate opposing teams and continue to do what is most important for Rangers fans, win.
There is no better place to begin than with Henrik Lundqvist. His greatness is obvious at this point but I've always been curious about what makes a goalie, in this case Lundqvist, the amazing puckstopper that he is. I grew up playing goalie in ice hockey and still hold the position close to my heart. Because of that I find myself critiquing and analyzing each team's goalie when I attend games. I've been to many games over the past few years during college and law school and have seen many goalies play up close. To me, Henrik seems to do a number of things that few other goalies do.
Before I say what those things are, I should mention I was at MSG last night and in typical Rangers fashion they won 3-0. Whether it was the ineptitude of the Jets offense or the brilliance of Henrik (last night it was a good amount of both) I found myself particularly pulled in by Lundqvist's play last night.
Back to my main point. Lundqvist moves and reacts only when necessary to make a save. There are no excess movements and there is no overplaying shooters. If you watch as an opponent has the puck at the point or along the boards Lundqvist isnt entirely in the "goalie stance" that they teach goalies from a young age. He stands up, sometimes nearly upright, to get the greatest view of the shooter.
I have three ideas as to why this tactic works so well and gives Lundqvist an advantage over most other goalies. The first is his vision of the ice. Goalies who crouch and attempt to see "through" players are at a distinct disadvantage. Think about it. Attempting to see through and around a bunch of 6'3 220 pound hockey players in full equiptment can often be a recipe for disaster. Teams that are successfull create screens and traffic in front of the net. To combat this, a goalies vision and ability to see the ice is key. It enables goalies to see shots leave the sticks of opponents and thereby get a better view of the trajectory of the puck. By standing tall Henrik can see over many of the screens rather than needing to look around them or through them and can keep his angle rather than moving his body and losing the net.
The second idea as to why Lundqvist is as successful as he is is where he plays in the crease. It's no secret that Lundqvist plays deep in his crease, incredibly deep under NHL standards. Young goalies used to be taught to challenge shooters and to take away the angle of a shooter. As more young goalies began to emulate the innovative butterfly style made popular by Patrick Roy in the mid to late 80's butterfly goalies have become the norm and the standup style is pretty much extinct. The butterfly syle has allowed goalies to play deeper in the net. Nevertheless, I cannot remember a goalie who played or plays quite as deep in the net as Lundqvist (according to Lundqvist and his goalie coach he plays somewhat of a hybrid style between butterfly and standup). In a game of inches where a little tip can be the difference between a shot hitting the post and going in, an extra split-second can make a huge difference. By playing deep in his crease, Lundqvist has that extra moment to react to shots and deflections that can make all the difference between a good goalie and an elite one.
The final reason Lundqvist stands above the rest of the goalies in the NHL is his quickness and ability to limit his movements on the ice. Many goalies, even in the NHL, seem to have less than stellar control of their bodies when they make saves. Anders Lindback, the backup goalie for Nashville, comes to mind. Even Marty Biron, the Rangers backup goalie who has arguably been the best backup in the league this year can be seen out of position with his body facing the net after some commotion around the crease. Lundqvist though, is the epitome of motion-conservation. His saves often look the same because everything is uniform with him. He goes through the same motions during TV timeouts. He looks at times statuesque in his stance. He can do all of this because of his quickness and balance. Lundqvist is so quick and compact in making saves that he can do things other goalies can't. And while this type of brilliance isn't easy to pick out because of its "less movement is more" characteristic it enables Lundqvist to dominate opposing teams and continue to do what is most important for Rangers fans, win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)