It's become downright infuriating. On what has been almost a daily basis, or, at least, just about every time he writes a column, The New York Post's Larry Brooks has seen fit to go out of his way to tell you what a bad guy that Ken Hitchcock really is. How most of his former players hate him, how executives around the league think he's borderline psychotic and how terribly wrong the Rangers would be in naming him as their next head coach. Not only that, but he's recently gone as far as to put words in Hitchcock's mouth, saying that he'd prefer the vacant Flyers head coaching position to the Rangers. Something which Hitchcock has denied saying in a recent comment in the New York Times (Diamos, 5/11/02). Larry could be right, Hitchcock could be right, it's something we will never know.

But that's not the issue. The question is, why? Why is Larry Brooks so vigorously trying to warn everyone about the danger that he feels is Ken Hitchcock? Doesn't it seem a bit odd for Rangers beat writer to take shots at a potential coaching candidate, especially one with such an overwhelming record of success? In his five and a half seasons in Dallas, Ken Hitchcock has compiled a staggering record of 277-160-60, and his accomplishments include:

1 Stanley Cup Championship
2 Western Conference Championships
5 division titles (out of five!)
3 nominations for the Jack Adams coach of the year award
Winner of both The Sporting News and The Hockey News coach of the year award in 1997

Whether or not you want Ken Hitchcock as the Rangers thirty-seventh head coach, you'd have to admit that writing off someone with such a compelling record of success, and a recent record of success, I might add, would be a disservice to the Rangers process of selecting the best head coach for the job.

So, back to the question of "why"? Larry Brooks' constant Hitchcock warnings stick out even further when you consider that the numerous other Ranger beat writers - from Dellapina to Wentworth to Gulitti to Diamos to Staple to Carpinello, and so on - none of them have voiced similar resignations about Ken Hitchcock even though they all have heard the same stories about Hitchcock's demeanor that Larry has! One line of speculation is Hitchcock is known as not being a very media friendly type, and Larry dreads the idea of having to spend eight to ten months around the guy. This may or may not be true, and between you, me and a lamp post, it probably has something to do with it, but I don't think it's the primary reason behind the plan. (and it does seem like a "plan", calculated and timely - I will get into more of both in a bit)

Keep a close eye on this guy. He's very, very sneaky.

When we go back through some of Mr. Brooks' recent columns, a lot more light is shed on the situation. The day before Ron Low was even fired, Larry fired his opening salvo in the Hitchcock Wars. In an article on 4/15/02 titled, "Hitch Would Hurt Ranger Rebuilding", Brooks posits that the Rangers are three players away from winning the East: Guerin, Holik and Chelios, and that the presence of Hitchcock would deter these players from signing with the Rangers in the off-season. Already, Brooks is sailing into some murky waters. To suggest that Guerin, Chelios or Holik wouldn't sign on with a Hitchcock-coached Rangers isn't such a preposterous statement in itself at the time, but it does seem a little odd that Brooks is putting Hitchcock in a negative light before the current Rangers coach was even fired. Fast forward to the afternoon of the Devils playoff ouster by the hands of the Carolina Hurricanes, and Bobby Holik's post-game comments that Ken Hitchcock wouldn't make a bit of difference whether he signs with the Rangers, and that he's unhappy to hear that several Rangers have been balking at the idea of Hitchcock as the next coach. So, already, you put two and two together and begin to wonder what sort of web Larry is trying to spin here.

Just one day later, with Ron Low now officially gone, Larry runs through some potential candidates in an article titled "Rangers Realize Low Isn't The Answer". Every potential candidate mentioned in the article - Herb Brooks, Guy Carbonneau, Larry Robinson, John Paddock, Jim Schoenfeld and others - get a positive blurb or two from Larry. Oh, all of them except one, who receives negative commentary. Guess which one that is? "It's difficult to find anyone with much good to say about Hitchcock's abrasive style - including those with whom he worked as an assistant coach for Canada's golden Olympic run in Salt Lake." We are also met with, "In addition, there is another assistant Sather should talk to before doing anything hasty, like hiring Hitchcock." It just doesn't seem normal when, in the very same article, six or so candidates are spoken of positively and one is spoken of very negatively, does it? Especially when every one of those candidates have their own quirks and downsides, and none of them have a win/loss record that could touch Hitchcock's with a ten foot pole.

Let's go a few days further now, to April 20th, the day after Ken Hitchcock interviewed with Glen Sather. All the local newspapers reported on it; the Times, Daily News, Newsday, Bergen Record, even general sports web sites like ESPN.com and TSN.com. Wait, a certain publication is missing. If you guessed Sky & Telescope Magazine, you would be correct. You would also be correct if you guessed the New York Post. Odd that every other major newspaper in the New York City area deemed this story worthy of coverage except one Larry Brooks' Post. But you know by now, it's not so odd at all.

The day after, April 21, Larry checks in with us to mention that there might be a possibility that Slava Fetisov will be interviewed. Stop the presses! No mention of Hitchcock's interview, however, which by all accounts in the other local newspapers, went very well. There is a mention of Hitchcock himself, of course, lest Larry break his streak of badmouthing the man in almost every successive article. It's getting even worse now, though. Much worse. Brooks' twists a comment of Hitchcock's out of proportion to fit his own agenda of painting Hitchcock as a loathsome bastard: "So there we were, reading the year-old quotes from Ken Hitchcock presented so earnestly somewhere else in which the former Dallas coach took backhand shots at Ron Low in praising the preparation of Kevin Lowe and Craig MacTavish, who followed Low in Edmonton." Read that quote again. There is no mention at all of Hitchcock taking a shot directly at Ron Low, Larry just spins it that way when all Hitchcock did was praise the preparation of Lowe and MacTavish! Lowe AND MacTavish, Larry! To infer this to be a backhanded shot at Ron Low is some real dirty pool, and quite dishonest. It gets even worse, though. Brooks then stoops as low as to call Hitchcock "Captain Kangaroo". He does look like Captain Kangaroo, sure, but how often do you see writers take shots at a player's or coach's physical traits?! This game Larry is playing is getting dirtier by the minute.

In researching this article I came upon quite a stunner, something that I didn't notice before. Let's take a look at the photos two local papers used of Ken Hitchcock when writing about him:

New York Daily News, 4/20/02 - A very reasonable photo, one that was obviously intended for circulation.

New York Post, 4/15/02 - Obviously not a photo intended for circulation. Mouth open, vacant stare, and an earlier picture of Hitchcock before he lost some weight.

This tale gets more nasty by the minute. But if only that were it. No, it keeps going, and going....

April 25th. Not a big one this time, but it just adds to the overall plot of "Why does Larry Brooks insist on taking shots at Ken Hitchcock in almost every article he writes?" Larry begrudgingly admits five days later that, "Hitchcock, by all accounts, impressed Sather when they met", but of course still feels the need to get a shot in there: "While the GM has strong concerns about the franchise's ability to attract free agents with the abrasive Hitchcock as head coach, Sather is now telling people that Hitchcock doesn't really employ a trap, but rather a system similar to the one he used in Edmonton. This is sure to be news to Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier and Paul Coffey." Like I said, not a huge one this time, but more of the constant and curious undermining. It should also be noted that four of five Hitchcock's Stars teams finished 8th or higher in the NHL in "goals for", something I assume Larry didn't have the time to research while looking through the New York Post photograph archives for the most unflattering Hitchcock picture.

Let's sidetrack for a minute and mention Brooks' recent "pleas" as to who should be the next Ranger head coach, which almost certainly has something to do with the constant Hitchcock undermining. First up was his plea for Mark Messier on April 13th, "With Low On His Way Out, Slats Should Turn To Mess". Then there was a plea for Herb Brooks to be the next Ranger coach, but I can't seem find that one right now, as diligently as I looked. Finally, on 5/2 was another Larry gem entitled, "Make Robby A Ranger - Now". Let's just talk about the semantics, first. Compare the terms "Mess" and "Robbie" with "Captain Kangaroo". I can't detect any hint of whom Larry might be chums with and who he wouldn't be, can you? And, although I like when Larry expresses his opinions instead of just reporting details, you combine the poor treatment that Hitchcock has been getting in Larry's pages with his calls for other candidates to get the job, and only the most naive of people wouldn't be looking at Larry Brooks take on the whole coaching "race" with a cynical eye now.

Back to the trail. Brooks takes a short vacation of Hitchcock-bashing to unleash a pretty big bombshell on May 9th. In an article which is terribly and completely misleadingly titled as, "Hitchcock Off Ranger List", Larry talks of a "well-placed source" who claims Hitchcock is "more comfortable with the idea of going to Broad Street rather than Broadway". Anyone familiar with Larry Brooks knows to consider his "well-placed sources" as little more than innuendo and speculation rather than actual details, as witnessed by his same "well-placed sources" which seem to get 95% of all the trade speculations the man has made in the past 10 years wrong. Whether or not Hitchcock actually said he has reservations about working with Lindros and Bure (and quite frankly, who could blame him?), like I mentioned in the opening paragraph, Hitchcock denied those statements, but that's not the issue. The issue is, where does "Hitchcock Off Ranger List" come from?!? There are no details provided on why the Rangers have removed Ken Hitchcock from their list, except to say that Sather has not offered Hitchcock the job yet. Well, Larry, he didn't offer anyone the job yet! By your reasoning, you could also say "Herb Brooks and Dave Tippett and Ted Nolan and Everyone Else In The Whole Damn World Off Ranger List"!! This is just terrible spin doctoring here. First, more shots fired (missiles this time, big ones) in his battle to make Ken Hitchcock seem terribly unappealing to the readers of his columns by making it seem like he's choosing the Flyers over the Rangers, and also for reporting something that is just not true! Larry Brooks has no proof, not even a "well-placed source" that Hitchcock is off the Ranger list. He's just extrapolating. Hard. Give him a bit of credit, though, at least he used a decent picture of Hitchcock this time.

Finally, yes, finally, I'll briefly mention articles on May 10th and May 11th where Larry says Herb Brooks is the "clear front runner" (why? how do you know this?), just to get to the latest chapter from May 12th, and, oh, it's a good one. First, he does more in the way of playing up Hitchcock's "player relationship skills" by saying, "... it was known within days of the conclusion of the Salt Lake Games that Canada's executive staff had limited Hitchcock's interaction with the players to a bare minimum after an early team mini-revolt". Well, whatever. I heard you the first fifty times that Hitchcock and many of his players don't get along so splendidly. Why this should even be an issue on a team that everyone in the entire hockey world has referred to as "spoiled fat cats", including Larry Brooks himself, is very strange. That's not even the good part yet. It gets much better...

"Fact is, Hitchcock was never the frontrunner for the Ranger job".

Really?! Now that's just amazing. Again, with absolutely no proof shown, and nothing of the sort mentioned from any of the other dozen plus people who cover the Rangers and who have many of the same "sources" as Larry does, this is quite a statement. And it also absolutely begs the question, "If Hitchcock was never a front runner for the Ranger job, why did Larry spend a month and sizeable column space undermining the guy every chance he could get"?! And why did he just try to badmouth him again in the sentence prior to the last one? Blowing my mind, Larry, you're blowin' my mind. But there's even more! And, he says with maniacal laughter, it gets even better!

"Actually, Hitchcock had virtually no chance to be hired here - until he all but swept Sather off his feet with a persuasive sell job in their April 19 face time".

Persuasive sell job.

Persuasive

Sell

Job.

If Brooks' had even a shred left of potential neutrality and that he's just been reporting the facts, that line really sunk it. Amazing how other people interviewed with Sather, but Hitchcock gave him a "sell job". Snowed him in. Not interviewed like everyone else. Hoodwinked 'em, he did. Because that's what this Ken Hitchcock is, a grumpy, mean-spirited, borderline psychotic, fat, Captain Kangaroo-looking con artist who would rather go to the Flyers than the Rangers!

The Taliban press conferences had a more even-handed view of things than this.

One more and we're done...

"And yes, it is quite true. Hitchcock last week did say privately that he preferred the Flyer job to the Ranger job..."

Here's something else that's "quite true". I slept with Jennifer Lopez last night, and brother, did she dig it! "Best ever," she said. "By a mile". Now, if you ask Jennifer Lopez about this she'd probably say, "what the hell's a Pete Rocha?", but I contend it's the truth. I have no proof I did, she has no proof I didn't, so it's a stalemate. Welcome to the world of Larry Brooks.

I'll wrap this up quickly. Let me just state for the record, it's not Larry Brooks' opinions I'm taking issue with. He doesn't want Hitchcock as coach - fine! But in order to reach those means he's twisting words, using the concept of "well-placed" sources as an excuse to further his agenda and trying to sway public opinion in a very dishonest and annoying manner. Why? Maybe, like was suggested earlier, he doesn't want to have to deal with the grumpy Hitchcock for eight to ten months a year. Maybe he's trying to put down a potentially good candidate so a candidate he's more friendly with, like Herb Brooks or "Robbie" stand a better chance. Maybe some of both. Whatever the reason it's been a real ugly thing to witness. I still think he's the most "interesting" Ranger writer in town, but Charles Manson is also "interesting". As far as respect for his work and his overall credibility, it couldn't be any lower.

"PAGE SIX" MEETS PAGE 57 - An Addendum

New York Post, 5/14/02

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

Personally, I'm waiting for the inevitable picture Larry runs of Hitchcock sitting on the can. In mid-squeeze.

Pete Rocha
procha@optonline.net

Recent Articles Versus Playoff Coverage Road Trip Pics

Web Hockeybird.com