I've jumped off the Tom Renney bandwagon with a flying leap. Following in the footsteps of Mark Messier, Colin Campbell and others, he's become the local media darling ... and like any media whore, he's seized the opportunity to play it to his advantage.

"Roster Flexibility"

When the team traded for Sean Avery, Renney was quick to explain that such move finally gave him the flexibility to alter the roster. He wasn't able to do this beforehand because, Renney said, "it boils down to what we've been able to put on the ice up until now."

What a load of crap! What a total abandonment of responsibility!

The two main changes Renney put forward was breaking up the Jagr-Straka-Nylander line and splitting the power play into two units with different styles. And in Renney's world, these moves were impossible with Sean Avery. An easy analysis tells a different story.

The Jagr-Straka-Nylander line could have been broken up months ago to provide the team more balance:

- Shanahan has needed a passing centerman, and Nylander always fit the bill

- Jagr historically has done wonders with no-name wingers (Kip Miller, Stu Barnes), which is part of his appeal, so having two veterans was unnecessary

The power play could have been broken up into two units months ago:

- Cullen played the point in Carolina, yet never got a whiff here

- The contrasting styles of Jagr and Shanahan was debated for months

The roster depth was there to make these moves earlier:

- Hossa was already on the roster to play with Straka and Jagr

- There is roster depth to give test games to wingers to play with Nylander and Shanahan. Hall could have been tried there before his trade; Ward could have been tried; a youngster like Dawes could have been tried.

Media Loves Renney, Hates Sather

But Renney doesn't get called out on this solely because he's a "nice guy," he also gets the adulation because the local media guys hate Sather. They detest his arrogant style and 5 million dollar salary.

That's why noted Sather hatchet man (and Leetch's PR man) was quick to write that Renney had "tried several times [to break up the Jagr line, but it] only worked because of the Avery acquisition."

This line of thought pins the responsibility of this season's poor performance solely on Glen Sather, which suits both parties, Dellapina and Renney, quite well, thank you.

Glen Sather and Don Maloney certainly deserve their portion of blame, but Tom Renney's attempt to distance himself from responsibility is a sad chapter in an underwhelming decade on Garden ice.

Dolan's obsession with positive public relations, even if at the expense of sports decisions, has spawned the Garden's PR spin machine.

Hockey decisions must adhere first to PR goodness, and second to talent evaluations.

It's why Prucha won't be traded for a veteran like Rucinsky (goes against the rebuilding mantra), but could be for sub-30 players like Pittsburgh's Malone and Orpik.

Within that context, it has become easier to read the trade rumor tea leaves with a fair amount of certainty.

The Aaron Ward Set-Up

So here's what I read between the lines recently ...

Larry Brooks wrote a critical piece about the Rangers management not informing Kaspar directly about his waiver status.

The PR effort kicks into fifth gear, and the next day Brooks reports that Don Maloney called him to say that the team had made multiple efforts to contact Kaspar, that the Rangers treat their players with respect, and that any other reporting is inaccurate.

No story there, right? Well, it is worth noting earlier in the same column Brooks explains management's stance on the Dan Girardi call-up: he writes that if Girardi does well, the dominoes begin to fall, and that management will then be free to use one of its veteran defenseman for help up front.

Although not attributed to Maloney, the situation appears clear enough that he's the source. And it sheds light on the team's apparent conclusion that it needs to acquire a veteran second line center. For better or worse, they don't believe Immonen or Dubinsky are the answer, at least in the immediate future.

So Who's In Maloney's Cross Hairs?

Roszival and Malik are safe because they are part of Jagr's unit of five. Tyutin is part of the rebuild. Kaspar was waived. Pock is a young reporter in the press box. Rachunek is a possibility, but his erratic play makes it unlikely. Which leaves Aaron Ward.

It all makes PR sense now, doesn't it?

With half of the NHL looking for an experienced defenseman, Aaron Ward and his Stanley Cup resume will have some value around the league. And while he won't net a younger player, he can return a similar veteran up front.

It's perfect PR symmetry. Even though it may block a younger forward's path to the team, it can be spun to the fan base that the team remains committed to rebuilding by pointing to Girardi and the vet-for-vet deal.

I don't know what trade is being discussed. But I do think it's on the horizon if the team stays in the race and Girardi proves himself somewhat capable. So in the interim, have fun speculating ...

There was an eye-opening quote about the second
line cener position from Tom Renney today:

"We're going to continue to look for it. You'd
think it's in your lineup. But it's possible it's
not, and you can only guess your way through that
need for so long."

On the surface, it's a vanilla quote - Renney is
saying a talented second line center may not be
on his roster.

But the context here is that under Renney, every
single younger player has regressed or stagnated
this season, which questions the coach's ability
to identify and develop young talent.

Let's review ...

Henrik Lundqvist
After a rookie season with a GAA of 2.24 and a
save percentage of 92%, Lundqvist has tumbled
to the ice with 2.83 GAA and 90% SVP.

Petr Prucha
After scoring 30 goals in 68 games in his rookie
campaign, Petr has lit the lamp only 10 times in
46 games, coupled with a -10 plus/minus.

Fedor Tyutin
Tyutin posted 26 points (6-19-25) in 77 games last
season, and has slipped with 11 points (2-9-11)
in 48 games with a disappointing -10 in plus/minus.

Adam Hall
Hall scored 29 points (14-15-29) in 75 games in
Nashville, but that production has diminished to
11 points in 45 games here in NY.

Blair Betts
With ten points in 66 games last year, Betts'
statistical production has stagnated with 7 points
in 48 games so far this season.

Marcel Hossa
Last year, Hossa put up 16 points in 64 games;
and has slipped remarkably to 5 points in 46 games.

Jason Ward
28 points last season, yet Ward has fallen to
10 points in 45 games this season.

Ryan Hollweg
Hollweg's no points this season isn't a marked
slip from last year's 5 points, but it should be
noted that Hollweg was a point-per-game scorer
throughout his junior career.

Prospects
The Dubinsky of prior years, Immonen and Dawes,
had a cup of coffee in NY before it was decided
that neither was ready to contribute this season.

An Inevitable Conclusion

Tom Renney is a likeable guy, and it's obvious
that the media beat writers want him to succeed,
which is why he's been spared criticism.

And he deserves quite a bit of credit for last
season, when the team's energy was a great balance
of managing a superstar and the excitement gained
by giving younger players their first legit chance.

But at what point can someone look at this season's
numbers in context and in their totality and not
point to coaching?

At what point can it not be concluded that the
expectations of this season has wilted his abilities
as a coach, particularly to develop younger talent?

Up until now, I've been one trying to give him the
benefit of the doubt because of last season's
success.

But the more he scapegoats his roster and specific
players, the more he brings attention that his
coaching must be criticized by the same standard.

Leeds said it best when explaining Sather's attitude
towards Ranger fans: He doesn't care what you think.

He has been granted a "do what you want" pass
by Dolan, which is not that surprising when you
consider the owner's hockey acumen.

If any of the following players sent him a letter,
he'd sent it to customer service thinking they were
simply disgrunted Cablevision subscribers:

Maxim Kondratiev, Jarkko Immonen, Blair Betts,
Jason Ward, Marcel Hossa, Jamie Lundmark, Josef Balej,
Dom Moore, Thomas Pock, Garth Murray, Adam Hall,
Richard Scott, Chad Wiseman, Ville Nieminen,
Fedor Federov, and Jeff Taffe.

That they are simply young players who did not reach
expected performance levels in a Ranger blueshirt
escapes recognition.

Why Prucha Is Different

Although the Rangers have enjoyed a resurgence,
there are few individuals who have broken through
the morass to enjoy fan adulation.

Most players could leave tomorrow and the high-
paying Ranger nation would barely flinch. Indeed,
only five players have emerged into the "corporate"
Ranger fans radar screen:

Jaromir Jagr, Brendan Shanahan, Henrik Lundqvist,
Jed Ortmeyer and Petr Prucha.

And since there is simply too much smoke around
Prucha's name, it is a reasonable to suggest that
sather is playing with fire here.

The Risks of a Prucha trade

Trading a Ranger nation favorite during a time of
fan interest is like waking a sleeping giant by
poking him in the eye with a hot poker.

It is a violent reaction, surprising in its
immediate fury, and its a situation Glen Sather
has yet to encounter.

Prucha has a face that sponsor's kids put on their
wall. His name ("Pruu") is cheered when he hits
the ice. He battles every game to fans' delight.

Trade Options

The Veterans: Martin Rucinsky, Keith Tkachuk
Risk Level: High

A veteran trade means nothing less than a Cup will
satisfy fan angst. That's like playing the lottery.
Bonus and extreme fan agita for acuiring a retread
like Martin Rucinsky.

The Prospect: Brent Seabrook
Risk Level: High

While trading for a top prospect can make hockey
sense, the pressure on that player to achieve
stardom is often too much to bear.

Young Player: Ryan Malone, Eric Brewer
Risk Level: Moderate

The only option that may bring a reasonable chance
for success: a player of similar age who can pay
immediate dividends to this year's team and into
the future. Positive bonus points if player brings
physical element to team that is needed.

Sather once compared himself to a lion upon
trading for Eric Lindros, but if he makes a mistake with
Petr Prucha, he'll be surprised how loud the Garden
can roar in anger ... and that it can actually reach
the ears of the owner.

Colin Campbell's vindictive actions against the
Rangers are so consistent and outrageous that they
are bordering on comical.

The suspensions that he hands out are, in essence,
a court of law. Every decision that he makes sets
a precedent for future actions of all NHL teams.

But since his arrival into office, Campbell has
handed out punishments to the Rangers using new
rationale that is never followed again.

I've ranted about this petty man in this column
since 2002. You can read them in the archives if
you'd like, but here is some history ...

Example: Hits to the Head

Early in 2002, Purinton high sticked Steven Peat to start
a fight, and Igor Ulanov high sticked Konawalchuk.
In both instances, the opposing player was not injured.

Colin Campbell suspended each Ranger player for
seven games.

In his verdict, Campbell wrote, "prior to the start
of the season, all clubs were advised that that there
would be a stricter enforcement regarding illegal
hits to the head."

So using the Ranger suspensions, Campbell's legal
precedent would be two-fold:
- Hits to the head, whether they cause injury or not,
could result in significant suspensions
- Hits to the head that do cause injuries would be
met with suspensions of greater than 7 games

Did this precedent stick for others? Of course not.

- Billy Guerin had received 3 games for a slash that
broke Patrik Stefan's jaw.
- Elbows to the head by Rob Ray and Marchment that
caused concussions? 5 games.
- Varada butt-ended Lindros' eye? Zero games.

Example: Coach Intentions

At the end of a game against the Blue Jackets, Ranger
coach Bryan Trottier (sigh) put Kristof Oliwa,
Sandy McCarthy and Dale Purinton on the ice in a move
that resulted in a brawl, but no injuries.

Colin Campbell suspended Trottier for two games.

In his decision, Campbell wrote that because the coach
used those players at the end of a game that was already
decided, he was responsible for the violence.

So using the Ranger suspensions, Campbell's precedent
would be defined as follows:
- A coach's intent can be used for suspensions
- More serious injuries would meet greater suspensions

Did this precedent stick? Of course not.
- Caps-Thrashers this year. Multiple fights at end of
game. Coaches fined, not suspended
- Others? There are plenty.

Present Day: Colton Orr suspension

Colton Orr high sticks Ovechkin where no injury occurs.

Colin Campbell suspends him for five games.

In his decision, Campbell writes "[Orr's] actions with
his stick were reckless and dangerous. Although no
injury resulted, the action is unacceptable."

So the precedent is that reckless actions can result
in suspensions. So naturally, this means that the
frequent elbows to Jagr's head by goons will be met
with similar punishment.

We all know the answer, so should we laugh or rant?

I can tell you that opposing teams are laughing.

Derian Hatcher, Brendan Witt and Donald Brashear are
sharpening their elbows for future runs at Jaromir Jagr,
chuckling at their good fortune.

It is only a matter of time before Cam Janssens takes
out Jagr with a 50 foot charging elbow.

I'd write that Colin Campbell should be ashamed at his
blatant incompetence and bias. But history has already
proven that the man has no integrity, so what's the point?

Happy hunting NHL. First one to knock off a Ranger player
gets a fruit basket from the league office.

There is a growing wave of criticism that the team
is becoming the same-old Rangers, wherein they stock the
team with over-the-hill veterans at the expense of
young players.

Now I don't mind if your enjoyment of hockey is founded
on criticizing the team or management. There are no
judgments on this site. (Unless you have bad teeth,
but every place has their quirks)

But I do mind if your criticism is not based on facts,
and this mantra is wrong. So please move on to another
agenda, because there are legitimate ones to embrace.

Players Under 30

The Rangers have fourteen players under 30 years old.
(I'm too lazy to match up birthdays to the years, so
advance apologies if I'm off by a year in some cases.)

Betts (26), Hall (26), Hollweg (23), Hossa (26),
Immonen (24), Lundqvist (25), Orr (24), Ortmeyer (28),
Pock (25), Prucha (24), Rachunek (27), Roszival (28),
Tyutin (23), J. Ward (27).

There is an obvious team development strategy here.
Players in their early 20's are being treated with
caution, and kept in juniors or Hartford unless they
break through. But generally speaking, unless you're
a key cog, the team is focusing on players 25-29.

While you may not agree with this approach, it is a
far cry from past Ranger philosophy ...

Historical Nightmares

The pre-lockout Rangers suited up practically entire
teams of over-30 players, and every time a player under
30 got a roster spot, he got more press than Britney
Spears stepping out of a car without panties.

"Look, Christin Dube is eating horsemeat!"

"Blasphemy - Muckler thinks Malhotra will be a third
line center!"

If if you need help remembering those years, I'm sure
we can post daily pictures of Kevin Stevens, Igor Ulanov,
Valeri Kamensky, Mike Keane, Brian Skrudland, etc.

Other Potential Gripes

By promoting false criticism, you deprive a nation of
antsy fans the ability to vent their frustration at
legitimate points of concern.

If you want to criticize ability, rather than age, than
go right ahead. Certain players deserve the scrutiny.

There are young players in the lineup whose job it is
to simply play "even" hockey. But the lack of points,
shots and toughness lets opponents key in mentally and
physically on the top two lines. Guys like Betts, Ward,
Hall and Hossa need to produce or step aside.

Our defenseman are comically not physical. The team fell
in love with the concept of offensive defensemen back in
the days of "Poti-Leetch for 30 minutes a game",
and no amount of real-time failure will convince them to
abandon the pursuit.

There, see? It's not so hard to focus on legitimate
criticism if that's what it takes to get you through the
season.

-Gabe

With the Rangers and Devils battling for first
place, it seems a good time to dispel some of
the myths that breed like Martin Brodeur at a
family picnic.

Myth Number 1: The Rangers Over Rely on their
Top Scorers, and Should Have Balance Like the
Devils if They Want to be Successful in the Playoffs

The Rangers top 4 goal scorers - Shanahan, Jagr,
Straka, and Nylander - have combined for 63 of the
team's 96 goals. That is a 65% mark.

The Devils' top 4 goal scorers - Elias, Gionta,
Langenbrunner, and Parise - have combined for 42
of the team's 71 goals. That's a 59% mark.

So this leaves us with a few new facts:

The top 4 scorers on each team account for a
fairly equitable percentage of the team's total
goal output.

The Rangers top-4 outscores the Devils top-4 by
21 goals, 63 to 42.

The rest of the Rangers team has outscored the
rest of the Devils team 33 to 29.

Now, here is where you might make an assumption that
brings us to the second myth ...

Myth Number 2: The Devils Play a Better Even
Strength Game than the Rangers

Scoring is meaningless if the other team scores more
often, and as a team, the Rangers are a minus-5. One
might think this exposes a weakness in the Rangers-
Devils comparison.

But as a team, the Devils are -12. That is 24th
in the league, and contradictory to their reputation
as a cohesive unit.

So surely that means the Devils are more efficient
at the man advantage, right?

Myth Number 3: The Devils are Better at Special Teams
than the Rangers

Well, ok, this isn't really a myth but it keeps the
format going, so work with me ...

The Rangers are scoring at a 20% clip on the power
play, compared to the Devils' 17%. This is an
advantage most would expect.

On the penalty kill, the Devils clock in at an
impressive 88%, while the Rangers are at an above
average 84%. But the Rangers have scored
3 SHG to the Devils' 1.

So let's review ... the Rangers outscore the Devils,
are better at even strength, are better on the power
play, but lag behind on the penalty kill. What am I
missing?

New Fact: Guess Where the Devils Have Their Most
Important Advantage?

Oh yes, how about that the Devils have only been called
for 98 penalties this season, while being granted
144 power plays.

Not a typo - the Devils have been granted 46 more
power plays than their opponents over the season's
first 28 games.

To put this in a league perspective, there are only
three teams that have a positive differential of
20 power plays or more (NJ, Tampa Bay, Colorado).

Wow.

If anyone thinks this statistic is representative
of disciplined play, it means you have a mullet, a ripped
Bon Jovi tank top on, and you celebrate in parking lots.
Because the officiating this season has been, at best,
inconsistent and there has been a concerted effort to try
and even out power play opportunities.

So for Ranger fans, this comparison should be a
refreshing bit of statistical information. And who knows,
if the league stops giving the Devils the officating cushion,
the numbers may slide even more in the Rangers' favor.

-Gabe

Anyone else chuckling at the folks who point to the
Pittsburgh Penguins as the model way to rebuild a
franchise?

As if Sidney Crosby and Evgeny Malkin were part of a
strategic vision rather than luck (Crosby lottery),
incompetence (bad record leads to Malkin), and a
desire to have an NHL team with ECHL salaries.

In that same discussion, a fan might point to the
Rangers' lack of "blue chip" or "superstar" young
players in their system. You know, like Staal in
Carolina or Crosby and Malkin in Pittsburgh.

The reality is this:

1. A team needs to be bad, really bad, to have a
chance at a top-3 draft pick. And even then, a
lottery system and that prospect class means that
a disastrous season does not guarantee a young star.

2. Young star players will be more available in
the new NHL than ever before, which means drafting
one is not as vital as it was prior to the lockout.

Star Stores Now Open

Vancouver GM Dave Nonis made a hilarious statement
bemoaning that Pittsburgh would put "seven years
of development money into [Crosby] and he can
leave at 25."

But it's even worse for such GM's who pine for the
glory days when they could luck into a star young
and keep their job for 12 years because of it:

Payday hits after their 3 year entry deal is up.

Even in a time when financial restraint was key,
star restricted free agents got their money in the
new post-lockout NHL.

Kovalchuk got $6 million after 4 years. Staal got
more than $4 million after 3. Havlat got $6 mill.
Hossa got $6 million.

You can expect those numbers to rise quickly to
the salary cap maximum (20% of team's cap) now
that the GM's cba gloves are off.

And there is a distinct limit of what each team
can afford. Just ask Tampa Bay, straining from
the weight of Richards, Lecavalier and St. Louis.

So in the coming years, getting marquee attractions
will not be a problem for a team with cap space.

Key is Depth

Good teams will be separated from the pack by the
quality of the rest of the roster.

So ... that the Rangers have a deep farm system with
above average talent but no superstars is a GOOD
thing.

Theoretically, we won't need to overpay an above-
average player because legitimate competition for
the spot.

Lundqvist, Montoya, Tyutin, Staal, Sanguinetti,
Dawes, Dubinsky, Korpikoski ... there is a wealth
of talent developing in the system.

Pick a position, and there is legitimate competition
to join the Rangers next year and beyond.

And as for stars, Sather and Maloney have been better
than most at keeping veterans to short term deals and
maintaining cap flexiblity.

Right now, we have two superstars in Jagr and
Shanahan.

When the time comes for new superstars, and if
none are on the roster, then we use the available cap
space and get one.

But criticizing the prospect pool for a lack of star
talent, or getting frustrated because players have
ceilings on their potential, are positions that don't take
into account the NHL's new financial landscape.

-Gabe

For Tom Renney, the New York honeymoon is about to end.

His Brilliant Entry

Last year, he launched his credibility against three
prominent background points:

1. The Rangers had not made the playoffs on seven years
2. The roster was flawed, or at best uncertain
3. The team was developing young players

Then when the team collapsed at the end of the season,
there were two legitimate points in his defense:

4. The Olympics fatigued the team
5. Key injuries to Jagr and Lundqvist

So in the context of last year, Renney deserved plenty
of praise for the team's performance, regardless of
whether you liked the team's "European" style of play.

This Year is a New Landscape

But this year, almost all of the criteria that worked
in his favor last year are gone.

1. Ranger fans have been to the playoffs and are expecting more.

2. Glen Sather and Don Maloney did a stellar job improving
the roster

3. This is now a veteran team at MSG

4. The Olympics are not a factor

5. In the context of the new and deeper roster, Jagr's
injury does not provide the excuse it did last season

It's the Coach, not the Roster

It is nice to read Ranger-related discussion that is not 95%
centered around trades, as was typical pre-lockout.

The arguments are on which kids deserve a shot at the NHL,
or which line combinations work best.

That is a reflection on the work Sather/Maloney have done.
They brought in grit to balance the finesse, and now it's
Renney's job to add that grit to the lineup.

So far, the results have not been pretty.

Players are not finishing checks; not protecting their
star players; and not playing with energy.

Forsberg knocks Lundqvist over without a response. Ruutu
takes liberties with Jagr to no response.

This challenge is what happens when you're a leading team,
and so far the Rangers are wilting in front of it.

A Win-Now Team Has a Smaller Window

Yes, it's too early to panic or to make conclusions.

But if the team's performance does not improve, it's likely
that Tom Renney has about 15 games left before fans
and media become more vocal about his performance.

Of his top six forwards, Prucha is the youngest at 25,
followed by Cullen at 30.

After Tyutin on the blueline, with Pock now out of the lineup,
the youngest is Rachunek at 27. And if he is bumped for
Ozolinsh, then Roszival is youngest at 28.

So in that context, Renney has an immediate mandate to win.

Winning teams do not have giants in the lineup, but they
play a hard and gritty game every shift. It is that type
of relentless energy and grit that has proven successful.

Renney deserves time to adapt his philosophies to the
challenge.

But if at the quarter pole the team still resembles the one
that played in Buffalo, then he'll be on the hot seat and
likely replace Tom Poti as the team's whipping boy.

Those are the stakes when you coach a win-now team.

-Gabe

So I'm feeling kind of dirty this morning, about to
steadfastly give credit to a man who makes
absurd money, spends too much worktime in Northern Canada,
and has more smugness than Federline on a bender.

But here's the rub - if you are still quick to
criticize Glen Sather, then you're matching him
arrogance chip for arrogance chip. Because it means
you believe you can do a better job as GM, and if so,
pshaw.

NY Beat Writers

It's incredible that the number one topic this offseason
for Larry Brooks and John Dellapina has been Brian Leetch.
The Rangers exceeded expectations last season, bring in
proven successful veterans, yet all the writers can
focus on is a questionable veteran that no team has signed.

Remember when the writers laughed at Sather's moves last
summer? I recall Brooks labeling Marek Malik the worst
free agent signing of the summer. You would think such
unfounded critism would have delivered some humility, but
apparently not - they are still eager to play GM.

Successes Devalued

And too many fans seem quick to diminish the success of
last season.

Roszival and Malik were league leaders in plus-minus? Meh,
it's a useless stat and only happened because of Jagr, the
chorus goes. (Disregarding that Malik has a combined +58
his prior two seasons in Vancouver)

Straka and Nylander were league leaders in scoring? Bah,
it's all because of Jagr, the minions sing, ignoring that
building around a superstar is smart strategy (See:
Forsberg/Gagne).

There's not enough room for rookies is another refrain.
This forgets that last year Sather turned what was
essentially seven unproven players into potential veterans
for this season (Betts, Ortmeyer, Hollweg, Prucha, Hossa,
Ward, Tyutin).

Comparitive GMs

And comparatively speaking, Sather is the class of the
Atlantic Conference GM's.

Lou Lamoriello has fallen from grace harder than David Frost.
The Mogilny, Malakhov and McGillis deals are well documented.
But less so are the absurd lengths he gave to Elias (7) and
Colin White (6) this summer to combat those mistakes.

The Islanders ... geez, fifteen years for DiPietro even after
the continuing Yashin mess. Can we move on?

The Flyers? Clarke is giving almost $10 million combined to
Hatcher, Rathje and Nedved this season. That's one of the
reasons he's at the cap ceiling and unable to address his
annual goaltending woes.

And the Penguins? It's hard to argue with the stable of
number one draft picks, but succeeding through failure doesn't
merit accolades. Particularly when you note their free agency
record (Gonchar, LeClair, Recchi, etc.).

A Clear View

Every post-season analysis proclaimed that the Rangers needed
a North American balance to their game, a reliable scorer
other than Jagr, and veteran leadership.

Sather addressed all three in spades, getting Shanahan, Cullen
and Ward.

Every new-era analysis says that you need to have a deep
farm system to succeed.

Sather has stockpiled a wealth of players for now and a few
years time - Staal, Montoya, Dawes, Dubinsky, Korpikoski,
Jessiman, Immonen, etc.

And lastly, teams with cap room are able to prey on teams
that have managed the cap poorly.

Sather has managed to not only keep contracts to minimal length,
but also has kept considerable cap room in order to seize
on a big opportunity, should one arise during the season.

Feeling the need to rant at the above? Then bring it on, you
arrogant armchair GM.

-Gabe

Some of you may know Tags and Boxer, astute hockey
observers, who recently surfaced a compelling
point relating to Lamoriello and NHL officiating.

I had earlier posed that having a senior member of
the Executive Committee of the league's Board of
Governors gave undue influence on the officials in
favor of the Devils.

A quick data compilation paints a clear and stark
conclusion to the point.

The Data

This season, the Devils have received 441 power plays
to their opponents 349. That is a +92 differential.

In comparison, the Rangers have received 442 power
play opportunities to their opponents 486. That is
a -44 differential.

Let me put those numbers in more graphic detail.

The Devils were given an advantage of more than
one power play opportunity per game.

The Rangers power play discrepancy is the worst
of any playoff-bound team.

The combined differential between the two teams
puts the Rangers at a disadvantage of 136 power
plays, or more than 1.5 per game!

Perspective

The common assumption was the Devils would struggle
this season because their defensive clutch and grab
tactics would be neutralized.

So the question is whether a NJ roster that remains
essentially unchanged so radically altered its
tactics, or whether the team is being given a
different game of whistles.

It's the Gray Area

I am not proposing that the officials will permit
blatant hooking by the Devils to appease Lamoriello.
The advantage instead lies in the subtleties.

Interference with the puck carrier will often be
called because fans see that. But the Rangers rely
on passing, and interference away from the puck will
be a huge obstacle.

If Jagr has the puck and Nylander goes to the net,
can the Devil player hold up Nylander?

And conversely, if Straka puts a soft hook into
the ribs of a Devils on a backcheck, will he
receive the same latitude as Gomez?

And will Devils be permitted to take unpenalized
hacks at Hollweg, and will Ranger players be
penalized if they do the same to Gionta after
he whacks at Lundqvist?

Winning and Losing is A Fine Line

The Devils last two wins against the Rangers came
on one-goal margins.

And regardless of the gloomy outlook presented by
many, hockey is a game of confidence and momentum.
An early power play goal, the freedom to get open
for passes, can present a huge advantage.

The Devils should not get an advantage because
Lamoriello is behind their bench, or because officials
are accustomed to their style of play.

This issue needs to become a hot button issue now,
not midway through the series.

After a tremendous season by this Ranger gang of
underdogs, they deserve that support.

-Gabe

The postseason abyss had been numbing.

For years, the team's losses mounted faster than
Brodeur on his sister-in-law, and April meant
nothing more than hoping for favorable draft status.

It meant predicting stardom on an unsuspecting
18-year old in a way that would make Louis Pearlman
blush. (Christian Dube, anyone?)

So permit me to momentarily revel in a season of
orgasmic contentment, and in doing so, let me also
cast shame on any fan who shies away from meeting
the New Jersey Devils in the first round.

Shame! To advocate the path of least resistance is
to embrace the "frontrunner" mentality completely
contradictory the junkyard dog persona responsible
for the team's success.

A Rangers-Devils first round matchup would be great.
Not for the lame "great for the game" reasons espoused
by the beat writers, of course.

It would be exciting because the Devils players and
management are hypocritical whiners who would wilt
under the media pressure of New York. What better
team to reignite playoff emotions?

Scientology: The Lamoriello Chapter

Supposedly, Scientology believes that childbirth
is supposed to be accomplished with as little noise
as possible. An amazing feat by the mother!

Well, that's how I feel trying to keep quiet when
everyone genuflects for Lamoriello.

Remember when Sather banished John MacLean to
Manitoba, and the press bashed the GM?

Well, Lamoriello has treated Mogilny and Malakhov
with similar disdain this season, but there are no
outcries from the media.

And, ironically, there's MacLean standing next to
Lamoriello on the Devils' bench.

And perhaps there's a story that his clout behind
the scenes of the NHL as member of the NHL
Board of Governors' Executive Committee might give
him significant influence with officials now that
he is also behind the bench.

Try such a maneuver in New York or Toronto, and
it'd be under a withering daily critique.

From The Ice

Grant Marshall lambasts Darius Kasparaitis for
the shoulder to his head earlier this season.

So to showcase the integrity of his approach, he
throws a leaping elbow at Fedor Tyutin's head in
this weekend's game.

Marshall's hit essentially mirrored the one Hollweg
threw on Rafalski. Both skated into the player
with their arms up. Hollweg gets 5, Marshall 0.

And speaking of zero, I noticed that two Devils
players were able to crosscheck Hollweg after his hit
on Rafalski without a penalty. I'm sure the ref, standing
right there, simply couldn't see the play.

Over to the side, you could watch Martin Brodeur
complaining about Blair Betts going after a loose puck
in his crease.

Of course, perhaps Marty was blocked from the view of
Brian Gionta literally whacking Kevin Weekes in the chest
multiple times in the first period. Or perhaps he also
missed Gionta skating on Weekes' hand in the third period.

False Kudos

Hey, how about all those kudos thrown the Devils' way
when they drafted Parise? The kid has amassed a whopping
29 points and a minus 5 at 22 years old.

Compare that our rookies Petr Prucha, who has 29 goals in
64 games, and Henrik Lundqvist, a Vezina candidate.

Remember all the commotion that Malik andor Kaspar ($3.3)
are overpaid? You didn't hear a word about Devils like
Madden ($3.9), Rafalski ($4.2), or even the easy target
like Malakhov ($3.6).

The Devils get the media love, but they rarely get the
criticism on the back end. Partly because it seems like
no one cares. Geez, even their Cup parades are held
in a friggin' parking lot.

Yoo-Hoo, Come out of the Shadows!

A Rangers-Devils series changes all that. So let's
get to it.

Let's analyze the officiating over the course of a series,
rather than isolated to one game.

Let's see how Lamoriello, Brodeur, and the rest of the
Devils deal with a back-page spotlight.

Let's see what happens if prized rookie Parise needs to
step up because of injury.

Let's see what happens if Gionta actually gets penalties
for his dirty play by the goalie crease.

Let's see what happens if Jagr kicks his game up a notch
and Pandolfo isn't permitted to clutch and grab.

It's the Playoffs. Embrace it. And bring on the Devils.

-Gabe

Now that the Rangers have made the playoffs, it's
time to point out an injustice: Sather Silence.

That Sather has not been lauded is predictable;
to do so would be a critique of the media's
"expert" analysis. Many recall SI and Larry Brooks,
but the preseason theme was consistently morose
regarding the makeup of the roster.

Preseason Media Predictions

Prediction from Shawn Roarke of Fox Sports:
"[Their] latest push to make the playoffs fails miserably.
The team is all but out of contention by the Olympic
Break, but can't start its long-awaited youth movement
because there is no trade market for its older players."

Ted Montgomery of USA Today wrote:
"The fault line between the Rangers having a decent
(say, .500) season and being a complete disaster will be
the play of Jaromir Jagr. There is just not enough talent
on this team in any area ..."

And John Dellapina from the Daily News wrote:
"It figures to be an unsightly one on Broadway, what with an
oddly concocted mix of players with few ties to the city ...
no amount of brainstorming figures to overcome shortcomings
such as a wacky mix of players that includes neophyte Russians,
graybeard Czechs and young North American checkers who barely
know one another."

Step up, Cowards!

Everyone is falling over themselves "explaining" how the
Rangers have had their success. It's Jagr. It's the Czechs.
It's Lundqvist.

Grow a pair, you pompous windbags and acknowledge that Sather,
who was a disaster pre-lockout, has done a stellar job
since the housecleaning at the 2004 trade deadline.

From the coaching staff, to the goaltending, to the defense,
to the forwards, to the farm system, to the cap situation,
this "wacky mix" has re-ignited the franchise.

If this was Lou Lamoriello, local and national media would
be licking the cheese from his toes and asking if he'd like
his nipples rubbed.

"Lou the genius knew Lundqvist would be a star. Lou fleeced
Toronto in getting such a bounty for Leetch. Lou shows how
to get a star like Jagr to buy into the team concept. Lou
has stocked the system with blue chippers like Staal, Prucha,
Korpikoski, Montoya, and so many others."

And the ironic part is that Sather would be lambasted if
he made moves for players like Mogilny, Malakhov and Kozlov.

Why It Matters

In truth, Sather doesn't care about the little people, but
this is not about Sather personally. He likely is as
undisturbed by praise as he was with criticism.

But Sather deserves credit because this style of play is
what the 'new' NHL is supposed to spotlight.

And when other teams stocked up on veteran grinders at the
deadline (as Lou did with Jason Wiemer), Sather went out and
added offensive firepower in Sandis Ozolinsh.

So as we head towards the playoffs, Gary Bettman and the
NHL must make a choice. Will Sather and the Rangers be
rewarded for their focus on offense?

If teams tackle Jagr; clutch and grab skill players like
Straka, Sykora and Nylander; and crash Lundqvist's crease,
will the requisite penalties be called?

The Financial Stakes

Here's the money shot - in today's cap-NHL, teams that
go far in the playoffs are the ones that turn the most profit.

So if the NHL permits clutch and grab to return now and in
the playoffs, expect teams to steer their rosters in
that direction this offseason.

But if the NHL re-establishes obstruction calls, and caters
to offensive players, then teams will flock to that
strategy as soon as this summer.

That's why respect for Sather and his roster blueprint
is important for how the Rangers fare in the month ahead,
and for how the 'new' NHL fares in the years following.

When Jagr brings up a lack of respect among
NHL players to discuss the Ruutu hit, it
seemed to have a Shakespearing ring to it.

But no matter what your opinion on Jarkko Ruutu's
Olympic hit on Jaromir Jagr, you're right.

It was a dirty hit because Jagr was battling
an opponent and Ruutu blindsided him near the
boards.

It was a clean hit because Jagr turned away from
Ruutu, which caused the head-first collision
into the boards.

Arguing either point is debating whether Charlize
Theron or Jessica Simpson is better looking;
it's all about personal preference.

Two Party Lines

The first party line is, like the pre-season
commercials, the NHL is a league of warriors.

There is no out-of-bounds, the Gordie Howe hat
trick is admirable, and all hockey players
must be tough enough to put on the jersey.

The second party line is the NHL needs its star
players in this new era, and skill must reign.

If you permit runs to be taken at the players
fans come to see, where will the fans go?

Other Leagues

There is a precedent from other major sports
leagues that props up the second party line.

The NFL instituted a rule that almost amounts to
a "don't touch the quarterback."

The NBA instituted a "no hand check" rule to
permit skill players to take flight.

NHL Rosters

The "disrespect" argument has been around for
awhile, but it's simplistic.

Players, often from other countries, try to earn as
much money as they can and then return home.

The CBA structure limits a few stars per team,
and NHL coaching tends to fill most of the roster
with grinding, defensive players.

That pays relatively well - close to a million
dollars per year if you stand out. So it's
hard to claim players simly are disrespectful.

Faced with that scenario, it is inevitable that
players adapt accordingly, and the list of players
stretches much farther than simply Jarkko Ruutu.

NHL In Precarious Spot

If anything, the Ruutu incident points out that
the NHL is closer to the Bertuzzi incident than
it cares to admit.

What if it happened in an NHL game, and it was
Kaspar and not Straka to retaliate?

It is distinctly possible that Kaspar might have
driven Ruutu's head to the ice, and imagine the
moral discussions that would be prompted then.

NHL Needs to Make a Decision

Admit it, you have no idea how the playoffs will
evolve. Will it be a physical, star-bashing affair?
Or will it be a stage for the NHL to increase
the amount of whistles per game?

This is part of the issue.

The NHL needs to decide whether protection is the
job of the league or individual teams and players.

Either direction has merit and appeal.

If teams are responsible, let it be clear so that
Colton Orr can take a permanent spot in the lineup.

Let rosters be constructed for the second half of
the season, when opponents take runs at star players.

Or if the league is responsbile, set up a system
where the refs are empowered to make clear decisions.

Create a set of rules that places instigators in a
mental headlock trying to determine what is legal.

Either direction works. The current confusing
landscape does not.

Hopefully, you were able to laugh at Lindy
Ruff's postgame commentary on the hip check
that Darius Kasparaitis used on Tim Connolly.

It was legal.

And depending on how much context you were
able to recall related to Lindy Ruff, that
laugh could have easily evolved to a guffaw.

Give yourself two points if you recalled
that Mike Grier viciously boarded Kaspar with
a leaping-off-his-feet-while-opponent-was-prone-
against-the-boards hit in the team's prior match.

Give yourself two points if you recall that Sabres
players under Ruff's tenure skirted the game's
rules with their physical play, such as Varada.

And it's not as if Ruff was an angel in his playing
career. Give yourself four points if, like poster
'Supernal T' you were able find a recent article
by Tim Graham, who pens a story that is loosely
re-described by me in shorter form as follows:

"Ruff was dumped accidentally by an opponent.
He was mad. He charged down the ice and delivered
an elbow to the opponent. Only he hit the wrong
player. And it was a no-contact beer league. And
it was only one year ago."

And if you collected all of those eight points,
you matched Lindy Ruff's career point totals.
Congratulations!

But Seriously Folks ...

Watching a hypocritical loudmouth is funny; in fact,
that seems to be the main purpose of the Internet
nowadays. But then I got to thinking ...

This is dangerous. Coaches have an overwhelming
amount of power of players, particularly to young
players trying to establish themselves.

If a coach incites the equivalent of a riot in
the dressing room, particularly against one player,
how much responsibility does he have for the outcome?

The Bertuzzi-Moore Precedent

Todd Bertuzzi is a pariah in many NHL arenas because
of his hit on Steve Moore, but is there any doubt
that Coach Mark Crawford played an emotional role?

That incident should absolutely be on the minds of
Colin Campbell and Gary Bettman when they listened
to Lindy Ruff today.

In a press conference, when a coach's verbal filter
is at its greatest, he still called Kasparaitis a
"cheap shot artist" and taunted him to "show some
guts" by fighting.

Now think about what Lindy Ruff will say before
the next game against the Rangers in the private
confines of his team's dressing room.

NHL Needs to Make a Decision

I happen to prefer old-school hockey, I miss bench
clearing brawls, and I still have the puck I caught
when Nick Fotiu would throw them into the crowd after
the pregame skate. Those were good times.

But this is about the new NHL. And if Bettman and Campbell
expect this league to be about offense, and expect
the need for a protective fighter to be a thing of the
past, then they need to address this with coaches.

Otherwise, another Bertuzzi-Moore incident is
only a matter of time.

The impressive start by the Rangers has inflated
the expectations for the club.

Let's be realistic and agree that a new goal
is making the playoffs, since pre-season media
reports had them as the worst team in the league.
Talk of competing against teams like Ottawa and
Detroit, though fun, is overly ambitious.

Let's also be realistic that missing the playoffs
would be catastrophic. The fans would be blood-
thirsty, because the rebuilding mantra has been
overshadowed by the team's current position.

A 10-team Race

As of January 16, and using a team's current
points-per-game pace as a guide, the Eastern
Conference projects to be a 10-team race:

Ottawa: 120
Carolina: 119
Philadelphia: 115
Buffalo: 110
Rangers: 104
Toronto: 95
Montreal: 90
New Jersey: 89
Atlanta: 89
Tampa Bay: 88

Florida, Islanders, Boston, Washington and
the Penguins are all 75 points or (much) less.

In this landscape, Atlanta and Tampa Bay are
on the outside looking in, but only 1 point
separates the 7-10 teams.

The Playoff Threshold

Given that teams like New Jersey and Atlanta
have come on strong of late, it is likely that
the entry threshold will rise from the current
90 points to 95.

This is a conclusion qualitatively furthered
by the increased number of conference games,
and the tentative grasp on competition by
teams like Pittsburgh, Islanders, and Boston.

The Rangers' Magic Number

The Rangers have 57 points in 45 games.

In order to reach 95 points, they need to play
.500 hockey over the remaining 37 games.

Considering that the team's record is currently
12 games over .500, it is an attainable goal.

It also means that games against Montreal,
Tampa Bay, Atlanta and New Jersey become
not only legitimate 4-point games, but also key
factors in a season-ending tie.

Keep it in Perspective

There is way too much panic and analysis when
the team loses to elite teams like Ottawa,
Detroit and Philadelphia.

This season will be a success if the team
makes the playoffs.

Subscribers will see a playoff game after an
eight year hiatus.

Young players will get the experience of the
postseason and can then set the bar higher.

Free agents will view the team as a team
on the rise.

Prospects can join the club without feeling
the need to be a savior.

And, who knows how far we can go with a hot
goaltender this postseason once we're in.

It's a long season, folks - keep the in-game
commentary and team analysis in perspective.
Right now, we're ahead of our curve.

There was an unspoken bias that presented itself
during the Penguins-Rangers game.

Sidney Crosby, the league's wonderkid, complained
frequently to the referees. Much was viewed from
the network feed, and it can be assumed that more
happened away from the camera. No unsportsmanlike
conduct penalty was called on the rookie.

So it was surprising that Marek Malik, the
Rangers' patron saint of defenseman, was hit with
an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty after the
end of regulation going into OT.

Most commentary blames Malik for not stopping his
complaints when told to by referee Craig Spada.
But were Malik's comments worse than Crosby's?

Spada is from Fort Erie, Ontario. Crosby is
Canada's pride and joy. Malik is from the
Czech Republic. And unsportmanlike conduct is a
subjective call, so I decided to investigate.

Marek Malik Explanation

"I was telling him that it didn't make him a better
referee to talk to me like a rookie; I deserve more
respect than that."

"When he gave me the penalty, I wasn't even talking
to him, I was talking to the bench."

To paraphrase:
1. Malik felt Spada treated him with disrespect
2. Spada called him for a penalty when Malik was
moving towards and talking to the bench

It's a he-said, he-said argument at this point.
But this is only Craig Spada's second year in the
NHL, so I decided to check which players he issues
these types of penalties.

Sens-Leafs: Radek Bonk

In his first season in the NHL (2003), Spada called
Radek Bonk of the Senators for a hooking penalty
against Robert Reichel of the Leafs. Many thought
Reichel dove, and Bonk questioned the call and earned
an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. The Leafs scored
on the ensuing 5-on-3 and won 2-1 on that tally.

"I didn't show him any disrespect," said Bonk
afterwards. "I told him it was a dive and he should
be making a call. I guess I should have kept my mouth
shut. I said no disrespectful words to him. I don't
understand why I got it."

Radek Bonk is from the Czech Republic.

Panthers-Atlanta: Valeri Bure

After calling an infraction on Val Bure, Spada
tacked on an additional two minutes for
unsportsmanlike conduct.

Afterward, Val Bure didn't make comments, but Lyle
Odelein said "the refereeing was just unbelievable.
Val [Bure] got an [unsportsmanlike conduct] penalty
tonight and he didn't say a word to the ref."

Val Bure is from Russia.

Sabres-Leafs: Miroslav Satan

Miroslav Satan is given an unsportmanlike conduct
following his complaints about an interference call.

"It was tough to take. He called me for grabbing the
stick, and I don't know how that can happen when I
didn't have anything in my hand," then-Sabre Satan said.

Miro Satan is from the Slovak Republic.

Devils-Sabres: Chris Drury

Drury was called for diving, and then given an
unsportsmanlike penalty for complaining.

Chris Drury is from the United States.

Craig Spada: Facts Tell A Story

The above are episodes that I found researching
Spada. I did not intentionally leave out an episode
where Spada called a penalty for complaining to a
Canadian. I did not find one.

This is the pink elephant in the room that surfaced
during the lockout. Whose game is it? And does
this argument extend to officials, the majority of
whom are Canadian?

Unsportsmanlike conduct is a subjective call. It
points to a line where referees have had enough.
But at least qualitatively, Craig Spada's short tenure
shows that his skin is thinner for non-Canadians.

The implications are obviously exponential in scope.

Craig Spada has begun the discussion, and we'll
watch his career with interest. And if Spada effects
important games in the future with bias, my guess
is that the pink elephant will insist on making his
presence known.

Stats don't lie, but they can be deceitful.
But when statistics affirm perceptions, then
it's time to make a change.

In tonight's game against the Avalanche,
the suddenly offensively-challenged Rangers
put Nylander on the ice for 41% of even-
strength play.

Martin Straka, the other Jagr linemate, got
37% of even strength time. (Notice this does
not tally power play time)

Their absence from the scoring column is
easy to notice, but their disappearance from
the stat sheet with this kind of ice time is
mind boggling.

Despite receiving a total of 20+ minutes of
ice time, Nylander did not register a shot on
goal, and Straka but one. Not much else, other
than the 2 minutes in penalty time that Nylander
took with a lazy hooking penalty.

Not Jagr-Compatible

Historically and stylistically, Jagr has been
a playmaker. In no year in his entire
career has Jagr had more goals than
assists.

He has brought fantasy hockey relevance
to journeymen like Kip Miller, by placing passes
on their sticks that even Bea Arthur could
have scored on.

Jagr started this season enjoying the ice
and scoring at will, but teams are clamping
down on him now and his linemates are
needed to find open ice and chances.

Nylander and Straka have not stepped up.
In the past ten games, both of those players
have but one goal apiece.

It's time for a change.

Prucha, not Sykora

JD mentioned tonight that Prucha didn't get
ice time because he didn't kill penalties.

But that's why I pointed out earlier the
percentage of 5-on-5 ice time that Nylander
and Straka received. There was a decision
to be made between Prucha and those two,
and Renney made the wrong one.

The age-old mantra in New York is to
import a name when things get tough, and
right now Petr Sykora is the fashion of choice.

But why not put Petr Prucha on Jagr's line for
five games and see how it plays out?

He had 9 goals in the past 6 games,
yet was given only 13 minutes of ice
time tonight.

Up until this point, Renney has done a
masterful job rewarding solid play with
ice time regardless of veteran status.

But nobody hands out meaningful accolades
in December. Prucha's earned it - let's see
if Renney steps up.

-Gabe

Another week, another rumor.

But this week there is some legitimacy to
the possible deal for Anaheim winger
Petr Sykora.

My take? It's baffling. And here are 5
reasons why ...

1. Sykora's Production

Yes, he had a fantastic season in Jersey
with Arnott and Elias in 00-01 with an
81 point output.

But in the season after that when he was
taken away from those players, he sank
back to 48 points in the same 73 games.

He now seems to have settled into a
55-point scoring average, having not broken
the 60-point barrier since that year in NJ.

2. Petr Prucha

I argue that the second line is doing just
fine with Prucha being the gunner.

Why bring Sykora into the fold? He's not a
playmaker, and he doesn't play in traffic.

Prucha makes Sykora unnecessary.

3. Cap Gives Us One Move

The hard salary cap gives us one move this
season to pick up additional salary. Don't
waste it on Sykora.

If the team needs to address production,
especially with an eye towards the playoffs,
then defense is the priority.

The point on the power play is sub-par, and
Tyutin and Kondratiev have not stepped up
as hoped.

Roszival and Malik are our first defensive
pairing; that can be improved.

4. Anaheim Deals Are Sub-Par

We did this already with Rucchin, didn't we?
And in spite of the "leadership" talk by fans
who have never been inside the lockerroom,
count me as thinking he's underachieved.

It's likely his play has been affected by his
back injury, but he's been at best on a par with
Moore and Betts, and 16 points in 31 games is
not sufficient for a player earning $2.2 mill.

5. Yutes Deserve More Shots

Other than Jagr, it's the younger players who
are being given a shot that have given the team
the surprising start.

Lundqvist in nets. Prucha on the power play.
The third and fourth line almost in their
entirety.

Unless the player is a slam-dunk upgrade,
if Sather thinks we need more offense, then give
the kids in Hartford a shot - such as Nigel Dawes,
or Jarkko Immonen.

We've had great success given kids an opportunity
this season, and even if they don't match the
output of Sykora, it still gives the team the
advantage of developing a player for next season.

Conclusion on Sykora? Take a pass.

There are startling developments at the moment:
1. The Rangers are at the top of the division
2. A star player (Bertuzzi) is available

There is no doubt that in a vacuum, obtaining
Bertuzzi is an enthralling option, but let's all
take a deep breath and get some perspective.

Team Chemistry

Some are minimizing the impact of bringing in
a player who broke Dominic Moore's brother's
neck. I disagree.

Moore would not truly accept Bert as a teammate,
and even if the team traded Dom, his friends
on the team would be shaken by it all.

I put it this way - if Matt Johnson had ended
Beuk's career and then joined the team with
Leetch, Messier and Graves, I doubt they would
welcome him with open arms.

Recent Performance

Tod Bertuzzi's last statistically dominant season
was three years ago, during the 02-03 season,
when he put up 97 pts and 144 PIM.

But in the following season he had 60 points in
69 games before the Moore incident, and this season
he has tallied only 25 pts in 29 games.

As a quick perspective, Prucha has more goals;
Straka has more points; Poti has a better +/-.

More, Bert's performance comes with a linemate in Markus
Naslund who is arguably one of the best offensive
players in the game.

So is Bertuzzi genuinely a dominant offensive player,
or is he simply a very good power forward? That
answer is crucial in the new salary cap era.

Bertuzzi Would Eliminate Other Options

Bertuzzi's salary this season is $5.3 million, which
is more than we are paying for Jagr, if you discount
the portion which Washington is paying.

His acquisition would preclude the team from making
runs at a remarkable list of star players who are on
the market or will be this summer that include:

Defenseman
Zdeno Chara
Wade Redden
Bryan McCabe
Rob Blake
Ed Jovanovski
Derek Morris

Forwards
Sergei Samsonov
Olli Jokinen
Doug Weight
Joe Sakic
Jason Arnott

And that doesn't include restricted free agents
like Martin Havlat, or players with team options who
might be set free like Keith Tkachuk. Wow.

Stay Smart

With the cap number of $39 million likely to come down
a bit in the offseason, the salaries will unlikely top
the $5 million mark.

With the team's success, stellar coaching, team morale
and large market opportunities, the Rangers may actually
be a place players seek out.

So it is possible that Sather could try and net two
free agents at a discount, much as Lacroix did with
Kariya and Selanne, if we keep payroll flexibility.

Conclusion? Bertuzzi is an enticing power forward, but
given the landscape, Sather should take a pass and
stay the course.

-Gabe

I don't think a Poti trade will happen any time soon.

Now perhaps my opinion is as scarce as a win at the
Igloo; and certainly it is not a future embraced by
most Ranger fans.

And I know that a pleth ... um, many scouts have
been attending Ranger games likely with Poti in their
sights. But it takes two to dance, and unless the
return is stellar, I don't see Sather (or Maloney)
pulling the trigger right now.

Here's why ...

Trade Bait Operations

When a player is on the block, they are customarily
showcased and put into positions to succeed. Poti
has been in the doghouse more than the blueline.

I know Lundmark was traded without a showcase,
butthe expectations were different. Jamie was a
playerwith minimal success at the NHL level -
Poti has beenan All-Star, albeit as Leetch's
replacement.

Our Roster

The Rangers roster is full, and there is no need for
depth defensemen. Unlike the recent trades for
parallel disappointments (Lundmark-Taffe), a Poti
trade requires a return that will stabilize a shaky
defense.

So unless his inclusion in a package brings a talent
like Boynton (no longer an option), then you might as
well stop believing that a trade wil happen any minute.

The Renney Solution

But there is another solution, and it comes in the form
of coaching - a mystical concept that Ranger fans have
not seen around MSG since the last century.

Not picked up by the general media yet, Renney is
giving Poti the Tortorella-Lecavalier treatment.

The goal is to raise the expectations of daily
performance for a player who is willing to coast on
talent alone.

Judging by his recent comments, more is needed:

"The first time he sat me out, I bounced back
great," Poti said after the morning skate. "I thought
I played five awesome games right in a row, doing
what I was supposed to do - carrying the puck,
joining the rush, making plays, creating offense."

Though Poti did have moments in recent games,
a description of his play as "great" and "awesome"
show that he must set higher expectations for his
own play. The quote shows complacency.

"Then against the Islanders (Thursday), I had an
average game - I thought the whole team played
average. And I'm the only one that gets sat out."

What Poti fails to comprehend is that his play is not,
and should not, be benchmarked against his teammates.

Tyutin and Kondratiev are rookies, and they are
expected to make mistakes and develop through
game situations; and a guy like Roszival does not
have the same ceiling as Poti.

Poti is being measured against his potential and
his experience, a unique set of criteria.

And if you step back and think long-term,
this approach would be intelligent and strategic.

Poti has talent that has yet to be unlocked. If
Renney can raise the player's expectation of himself,
then we've added either a significant player or a
stellar trading chip.

Yes, a bag of pucks would be nice. But we can
always get that later in the year if Renney doesn't
succeed.

-Gabe

There are three guarantees in life:

Death. Taxes. And Sather emerging victorious to every
challenge to his throne.

This is not because Sather has more positives than
negatives in his tenure, nor a result of a charming
persona. Yet it is reality.

To prove the point, let's analyze the plight of Larry
Brooks, who has recently made it his mission to try
and tear down Sather with a dedication that is
comparable to Sherry Ross at the Devils buffet line.

Historically, Brooks was the only beat writer willing
to write his conscience, taking on tough subjects
such as Messier's place on the team and specific
players faults rather than team performance overall.

But his agenda of lambasting Sather at every turn has
clouded objectivity frequently this off-season ...

Nick Boynton

A few weeks ago, Brooks wrote:

"[Boynton's agent] would not disclose the identities of
of those GM's with whom he had spoken, but he did say
that he had not heard from Glen Sather. Will wonders
never cease?"

But making an offer sheet to Boynton would be
illogical. An offer of $1.99 million would cost only
a second round draft pick, but Boston would match. And
an offer of $2 million or more requires a first and
third round draft pick, which is prohibitive.

Instead, Sather is talking directly with Boston about
a potential trade. It looks unlikely, but the effort
which Brooks maligns, does appear to be there.

Peter Worrell

In reporting Peter Worrell's reporting to the Wolfpack,
Brooks writes: "What in the world is 27 year old faded
enforcer Peter Worrell doing in Hartfordon a tryout? ...
the best answer is that this business-as-usual move by
Sather needs no further evaluation whatsoever."

Actually, business-as-usual would have been to demote
the young pugilists in camp, like Rullier, Purinton,
and Strudwick, and give Worrell the benefit of the doubt
at the NHL level.

By evaluating Worrell in the AHL, it gives the team an
ability to see how he fares in the 'new' league. And, as
of the last preseason game, Worrell has yet to don the
Ranger jersey.

Recent 'Bad Moves'

In Sunday's column, Brooks lists the good, bad and ugly
moves of the offseason.

In the good moves section, he lists the following Ranger
transactions:
- Um, checking, checking, ok, moving on ...

In the bad moves part, he lists:
- Not buying out Darius Kasparaitis
- Steve Rucchin trade

And in the ugly section, he lists:
- Marek Malik as the worst free agent signing
- The Rangers as one of four ugly NHL teams

Price check on bitterness, aisle three.

As the old adage goes, if you don't have anything nice
to say about someone, don't say anything at all.

Or said another way, if you can't be objective about the
team you're covering, perhaps it's best to follow Mark
Everson and leave the beat.

Marek Malik was the league leader in +/-, and is projected
to be a calming influence on a shaky defense. A good
comparison would be Cory Cross when he was here. Though
it was an overpayment, it hardly ranks as the 'ugliest'
move of the summer.

To understand the absurdity of the report, look across the
river to Lou Lamoriello's offseason moves. He signs Vlad
Malakhov for $3.6 million, more than a million more than
Malik, and if Sather had made that move, there would not be
enough ink on the East Coast for Brooks to criticize the move.

Or Dan McGillis, another signing by Lamoriello for only
$300k less than Malik. Or Mogilny, a forward with injury
issues signing for a million more dollars than Malik.

Let's Move On

I am not an advocate of Sather's tenure, and would agree
that he is overpaid, arrogant, distant and has never embraced
New York like other management figures.

But he has given us a legitimate youth movement that is
represented in both New York and Hartford.

Lundqvist, Tyutin, Kondratiev, Lundmark, Immonen, Prucha,
Jessiman, Montoya, Ortmeyer, Betts, Hossa, Staal, Korpikoski,
Dawes, Balej, Pock, and others.

It is time to stop obsessing about Sather, and instead watch
this group of players develop without an alternative agenda.

Hopefully, Brooks will snap out of it and return to the form
of an objective and independent writer. Otherwise, he may
as well get behind Everson and Ross at the Devils buffet line.

-Gabe

Maybe it's appropriate that Disney bailed out of the NHL, because
unlike the movie Aladdin's theme song "It's a Whole New World,"
the NHL new world should have Tina Turner standing outside a
steel cage singing "we don't need another hero ..."

Looking back, it was a beautiful moment when Bettman thanked the
fans after the lockout.

"It is the mandate of this new partnership, achieved at enormous
cost, to reconnect with our fans and refocus the spotlight where it
belongs: on the ice."

Aww, I'm blushing.

"The greatness of our game is best reflected by the character
and commitment of our fans. We appreciate the patience and the
support they have shown through this difficult time. It's time our
fans had some fun again, and our objective is to give them all they
can handle."

OK, group hug!

"We cannot discuss specific language within the NHL contract,"
said an OLN spokesman. "We can state with certainty that, while
it's our desire to resolve this issue prior to our first game, the
blackout guidelines previously communicated remain in effect."

Um, what?

OLN - Where Did The Dollars Come From?

So ESPN balks at the $60 million annual price tag for the NHL,
and OLN steps up to the plate. Fair enough, money talks.

But of course, Comcast is owner of the Flyers, who had a payroll
of $68 million dollars last season. With a $39 million hard cap,
the Flyers will save almost $30 million per year after this season's
salary write-offs of Amonte and LeClair.

So Comcast had been willing to spend an extra $30 million solely
for the Flyers, but now they get to leverage it against every team
in the league. Nice deal if you can get it.

But if OLN is willing to place the NHL as its lead programming,
that should be good for fans, right?

Invading On Your Teams

OLN has up-to eight games for each team to which it holds
exclusive rights, and playoff games (though I haven't
deciphered that part yet - as a Ranger fan, playoffs are
where the wild things are, not a real place).

Translation: OLN can take those games and black them out
from the customary cable channel, so that you need OLN
to see those games

Translation #2: If you live in a major television market with
a number of potential subscribers, get ready for OLN to dip
its hand heavily into your season. That means you New York,
Chicago and Boston.

Translation #3: Fans will now be caught in a struggle between
Comcast and other cable companies for pricing, channel
grouping, and which corporate monolith can have the bigger profits.

Conclusion: Just having cable isn't enough to watch the NHL. You
need to make certain that you'll have all appropriate channels,
and in some places you'll be asked by one corporate giant to
complain to another corporate giant about the lack of access
to their channel.

Advantage: Flyers?

Now Comcast is such a big company that surely these dollars
from the Flyers don't impact what Comcast is doing from a
league standpoint, right?

Well, in Philadelphia, Comcast says no Flyers games carried on
OLN will be blacked out locally, even to satellite customers.

Compare that to some correspondence hockeybird board
members have been getting in response to their questions ...

"OLN will be airing nationally televised NHL games on Monday
and Tuesdays. All games appearing on OLN will be exclusive
to OLN and will not appear on the regional sports networks
(MSG and FSN-NY). For the 2005-06 season OLN will air an
estimated 58 Nationally televised games. OLN had the right
to choose up to 8 exclusive airings from each of the Rangers,
Devil and Islanders schedules. Although these games have yet
to be selected, the October the Rangers season opener against
the Flyers is tentatively scheduled on OLN."

Bettman To The Rescue?

But surely this can't be acceptable to Bettman's new NHL, can it?
In the new era of fan outreach, Bettman and his fan-friendly
mantra will arrive to explain that everyone will have easy access
to the games, right?

Gary Bettman: "My guess is that by having us, OLN is anticipating,
as are we, subscriber growth"

Me: "This man would not know irony if it was gyrating in front of
him in a g-string. If people cared enough about the NHL to effect
OLN subscriber growth, there would be outcry about the set-up.
That no one cares is a hint about the prospects for future success
under Gary Bettman."

-Gabe

Anyone who is cheering the Penguins' 'miraculous' recovery this
off-season probably also enjoys when Bambi's mother gets killed
and when Old Yeller was taken out back.

The story must be one of the most ironically perverse in sports
lore of the past helf century. And since the facts have been
conveniently swept under Mario's office at the Igloo, let's surface
them for those who need a refresher.

The Flag Bearer for Financial Spending in the 1990's

Howard Baldwin was the owner of the free-flying Penguin teams of
the 1990's and helped set in a new financial era in the NHL.
He was not interested in parity, given that he had a
team of stars with high contracts, including Mario Lemieux,
Jaromir Jagr, Tom Barasso, Paul Coffey, and Kevin Stevens.

But here's the funny thing about Howard Baldwin - he didn't have
the money to pay those contracts and filed for bankruptcy in 1998.

That's the story in a nutshell, but since that's not entertaining
enough for an article, let's dig deeper.

Mario Lemieux and his financial anchor to Pittsburgh

In 1991, Baldwin bestowed upon Mario Lemieux a 6 year, $42 million
contract. Yup, $7 million per season.

It is interesting that Lemieux's salary fifteen (15) years ago
roughly equals the maximum salary permitted in the new NHL.

For context: In 1991, the median income was $30,000; average price of
a home was $147,000; and stamps cost a quarter.

But a funny thing happened to Mario on the way to the bank - Baldwin
needed deferrals on his contract. And when Baldwin went bankrupt,
Mario was owed $30 million dollars.

And that debt was how Mario became a part owner of the Penguins.

Jagr Picks Up the Contract Ball and Runs With It

Although the Pens had a stable of star players that decade, when
Mario retired in the late 90's, Jagr became the team's marquee
player. And with Kariya and Lindros signing big contracts,
Baldwin reacted and signed Jagr to six-year $48 million contract.

Though the contract began at $4.5 million, it escalated to an
annual salary of $9.5 million in 2000, thereby creating the
inevitable $10 million player by the turn of the century.

Of course, Howard Baldwin filed for bankruptcy the next year,
and was not around to enjoy the financial seeds he planted.

Oh, But What About The Venue Deal?

Oh yes, the venue deal. The bane of the team's existence, where
the big, bad state is so unfair to Mario and the Penguins.

In 1997, the other Pittsburgh teams (Pirates and Steelers) moved
to build new venues for their teams.

Howard Baldwin chose not to do that. Hemorraging money, he agreed
to a $13 million deal where he could improve the venue with club
seats and other improvements.

This was a conscious decision to take the short-term money and
continue salary ascension at a dizzying rate, rather than build
the team through sound financial growth.

Pity the Penguins, said Ken Sawyer

You remember the cash-strapped Penguins right?

They had a payroll of roughly $20 million but Team President
Ken Sawyer still claimed that the team was projected to lose
$5 million.

Ah yes, Ken Sawyer. The Chief Financial Offer of the NHL when
John Ziegler was running the NHL. A financial consultant to
the Penguins when Howard Baldwin was owner. And, of course,
President of Lemieux Group Limited Partnership in 2003, when
the team jettisoned anyone earning over minimum wage.

So in the years 'preparing' for the CBA, Pittsburgh lost
enough games to net the 2003 first overall draft choice (Fleury),
the second overall draft choice in 2004 (Malkin), and of course
the first overall this year (Crosby).

And look, with a new CBA deal in place, the Penguins now are
able to sign away defenseman Sergei Gonchar from Boston and
Ziggy Palffy from Los Angeles. And they get to pay Lemieux
whatever salary they want to go against the cap, because he's
the owner.

The arena deal is up in 2007, and the Pens are going hard for
a new venue. And in that spirit, Craig Patrick told fans that he
"anticipates being a contender right away."

And it's a good thing that the new CBA finally will stick it to
teams like the Rangers. Because, after all, they are the
reason Bettman needed to step in and help poor Mario
Lemieux and the Pittsburgh Penguins.

I'm finding it hard to get indignant at the NHL these days.

Bettman remains commissioner, but he also remains a whiney,
long-standing sufferer of a Napoleon complex.

Lemieux got Sidney Crosby, but it's only a matter of time until other teams
question why he can pay himself less than a max salary as a player. It was
cute when the Pens were pathetic, but there's a battle ahead for him.

You show me the black cloud, and I'll show you a great strip club where
you can come in from the rain.

But the recent roasting of Jaromir Jagr based on one quote in an Eastern
European newspaper is chafing me. I understand that when a player joins the
Rangers, his stock around the league plummets by 20%.

But let's call the irony out from under the collapsing weight of accepted
media discourse. Jaromir Jagr, star forward for the New York Rangers, is
one of the best bargains in the NHL.

Compiling the Data

I compared Jagr's scoring statistics from the past four seasons with eight
(8) other star veterans with established contracts for the coming season,
and they are: Mats Sundin, Joe Sakic, Keith Tkachuk, Sergei Federov,
Billy Guerin, Jeremy Roenick, and Alexei Yashin.

I did not include players whose salaries are not yet confirmed (e.g. Joe
Thornton, Forsberg) or young players with limited data.

I recognize that points data is not a complete picture of a player's worth,
but since everyone is talking about scoring in the 'new NHL', it seems an
appropriate place to start.

Conclusion #1: Jagr and Sakic had the best points per game average

This one was a pretty simple calculation.

Jagr: 1.13 points per game (341 points over 302 games)
Sakic: 1.13 points per game (342 over 303)
Tkachuk: 1.04 points per game (280 over 268)
Sundin: 0.94 points per game (301 over 320)
Yashin: 0.91 points per game (262 over 288)
Federov: 0.90 points per game (285 over 316)
Guerin: 0.86 points per game (248 over 288)
Roenick: 0.84 points per game (249 over 296)

Conclusion #2: Jagr and Sakic project equally for this season

Points per game mean little if you're not in the lineup. So for the
next data sweep, I calculated the projected games each player would
suit up for based on average games played over the past 4 years.
Sakic and Jagr remain neck and neck.

Jagr: 86 points
Sakic: 86 points
Sundin: 75 points
Federov: 71 points
Tkachuk: 70 points
Yashin: 66 points
Guerin: 62 points
Roenick: 62 points

Conclusion #3: Jagr is the Best Scoring Bargain by a Mile

In this world of a salary cap, it is no longer enough to judge a
player by his statistics - you must compare that number to the
cap space he occupies. That is a simple calculation where you measure
how many dollars you are spending per point. And this is where Jagr
makes a case for the best-valued scorer in the NHL.

Jagr: $49,382 per point (salary of $4,210,000)
Sakic: $77,894 per point ($6.660,000)
Roenick: $79,357 per point ($4,940,000)
Federov: $85,333 per point ($6,080,000)
Sundin: $90,897 per point ($6,840,000)
Tkachuk: $108,571 per point ($7,600,000)
Guerin: $111,064 per point ($6,886,000)
Yashin: $116,030 per point ($7,600,000)

The Market Sets

So I see that Sergei Zubov, a 35-year old defenseman signs for
$4 million per year for 3 years today with Dallas.

And I noticed that 40-year olds Nieuwendyk and Roberts signed
with Florida and Mike Keenan for $2.5 million each.

All of those headlines bring about hazy memories, and the names
and philosophies seem so ... familiar.

But then I remember that this is 2005. And the Rangers have
arguably the league's best scoring forward on the books for millions
less than what others will pay for his equivalent.

Stange days, indeed ...

-Gabe

I must admit, the inflammatory rhetoric of my last posting
made me a tad regretful.

It was motivated by, and targeted at, the loud, boorish and
uninformed hecklers who seem to be NHL mercenary goon
posters for hire on other websites.

And, to be honest, a nice rant against them felt good. But,
in retrospect, those folks won't be swayed by factual points
of view, so it's a short lived joy.

Kind of like sucking on an empty whipped cream can ... fun
for a second, but then you're left wondering what the heck
you're doing with your life.

Um, anyway ...

Let me instead approach the topic of Gary Bettman with more
intelligent recipients in mind.

Let's whittle down the scope of the argument to this:
"Has Gary Bettman earned your trust in his decade of stewardship
to merit your support in this labor war?"

Let's approach this one nugget at a time. Today, it's the sport
of hockey's equity in television.

Bettman: Hockey Needs a Television Overhaul

Bettman's focus for when (if) the league re-starts has been high
definition television, with a belief that the sharpness of the
picture will enable fans to follow the action better.

Ken Schanzer, NBC Sports President, explained it as follows:
"Let me start by saying that no sport televises better in HD
than hockey. The access to HD needs to expand first, but it's
the spectacle of the game that just shows better. It's not just
about (seeing) the puck. It's the vividness of the whole sport."

Damn if this angle of "better showcasing the sport to a new home
audience" doesn't sound like the press releases in advance of the
Fox glowing puck back in the mid 90's.

But, with NHL ratings being surpassed this year by arena football,
and with skeet shooting nipping at its heels, who can argue?

I can.

The Sport of Hockey Needs No Television Overhaul

I would argue that the sport of hockey remains rife with potential,
and all that is wrong is Bettman's misguided leadership.

The easy arguments are the success in 1994 that Bettman inherited
and squandered; and the phenomenally atrocious Fox network broadcasts
including that damn glowing puck.

But here's another perspective.

Canada's 5-2 victory over the United States for the gold medal in
the recent Olympics was the highest-rated hockey game in the U.S.
since Lake Placid in 1980.

The Sunday afternoon game drew a 10.7 national rating - that means
10.7 percent of homes tuned into a television had the game on.

That translated into 38 million people watched at least part of the
game.

(And the Russia - United States game drew almost 20 million U.S.
viewers, roughly half of the Canada game.)

No glowing puck.

No high definition television.

No fancy marketing slogans.

Just hockey - with the best players in the world, with competitive
subplots, and with freedom for the skill to shine.

So before you jump on Gary Bettman's bandwagon to a land
of shootouts, cost certainty and a fancy re-launch, think about
this.

When you last watched the NHL, did you enjoy the games?

And if not, what gives you any reason to believe that Bettman
understands or acknowledges the opportunity that he's
squandered for a decade with the greatest game on earth?

-Gabe

In the spirit of the holiday season, I offer you glad tidings,
unless you're an idiot.

You see, I anticipated the hard line stances from the league
and the Player's Association.

But what has taken me completely by surprise is the level of
stupidity embraced by militant fans aggressively supporting
Gary Bettman.

I'm waiting for them to finish their rants with "It's Trimspa,
baby ..."

Yes, I'm staying it. You are D-U-M-B. Unintelligent. Unable
to grasp any level of detail past the "ages 3-5" label.

And no, this does not mean that I wholeheartedly support the
Player's Association's positions.

It means what I wrote - you are an idiot.

Want proof? Let's go ...

Definitions of a Salary Cap

A "salary cap" is fundamentally a measure of financial restraint,
with the details essential to its ultimate form.

If you have written that the NHL needs a cap "like the NBA or
NFL," then place a dunce cap on your head and sit in the corner.

The NFL has a hard cap. This means that each team has a salary
ceiling that they cannot go beyond.

The NBA has a soft cap. This places restraints through a luxury
tax and free agency restrictions on teams over the cap. But
it still enables a team like the Knicks to spend $100 million
on a team if they so choose.

If you eliminate the word "cap" and look at both systems, you'll
notice that the NBA's soft cap is closer to the NHLPA's luxury
tax than the NHL's proposal of a restrictive hard cap.

Hard Cap Details

The NFL is uniquely positioned to support a hard cap because its
value lies in the league, not dominant teams.

The Super Bowl is one of the biggest global money-making events,
and it is popular whether a New York or a Wisconsin team is in.

The television rights are all network-based national broadcasts;
you don't have local broadcasts for one market like MSG.

Try to compare that to the NHL without laughing.

Bettman's deal with NBC has no guaranteed money. It is possible
that Cablevision can make more money with local Ranger broadcasts
than Bettman can with the entire league.

And compare the NHL Finals with the Rangers in 1994, to the
recent Finals between ... crap, anybody remember the teams?

To make sure the point is crystal clear: a hard cap works when a
league is financially greater than the sum of its parts. Under
Bettman's reign, the league has no financial leverage other than
the expansion fees it generated.

But that Foxtrax glowing puck sure was a great idea, eh?

Think The Owners' Finances are Truthful?

There is a crucial distinction between saying players are overpaid,
and installing a system "tied to revenues."

The first point is a valid one, and I believe addressed with the
PA's recent 24% rollback, so it needs no further discussion.

The system "tied to revenues" is the weighty issue.

Let's ignore that expansion teams are a significant anchor to the
league's finances because their revenues are struggling.

Instead, let's examine whether owners merit the trust from the players
that their reported revenue is genuine.

For example, MSG has a stream of gray-area revenue associated
with the Rangers.

Cablevision placed high-profile Ranger games (in theory)
on its start-up cable channel Metro to drive consumer interest. That
represented a significant source of revenue if the channel stuck.

Cablevision also receives significant tax breaks from NYC simply
because they present hockey, a point Bloomberg brought up recently
in the West Side Stadium arguments.

Or, do you think that companies like Cablevision or Comcast, which
are accustomed to hiding fees in cable bills, are above playing the
same games with the NHLPA?

And I'll stop before I string together the words "John Spano" and
"accepted owner of an NHL team by Gary Bettman" more forcefully.

Hopefully the point is undebateable; simply because owners over-spent
on players does not mean they have earned the right to define
"league revenues" and tie player salaries to it.

In fact, it's a fairly ridiculous conclusion at which to arrive.

A Privilege to Play in the NHL

You know you're an idiot when: you claim that players should be honored
to play under the NHL proposal of $1.3 million average salary.

Let's ignore the "privilege" of the physical beating a hockey player
takes, and the single-minded dedication to the game that got him to the
world's elite hockey league.

Instead, let's examine the current NHL proposal for Sidney Crosby. When
drafted, he would be slotted in at the rookie salary ceiling. The
club which drafts him, and the league, would have a marketing bonanza -
tv, jerseys, etc.

Upon expiration of his contract, according to the NHL proposal, Crosby would
find no arbitration options, and would be at the mercy of his NHL team
regarding his new salary.

If Crosby decided that the salary was not fair, his only recourse is to sit
out. But the NHL team would own his rights, and could theoretically keep
him out of hockey until he was 30 years old.

Wow, what a privilege. I can't image why Goodenow is balking at the system.

What They Really Mean

Look, despite the moral posturing, I understand the crux behind
the pro-owner position.

Such fans know that teams like the Rangers, Flyers and Detroit have tens
of millions of dollars more to spend than a hard cap number of
$31-34 million.

But they'd rather that money stay in the owners' pocket rather than
go to the players because it would hurt a competitive balance.

No one would thrash that request - but it's pathetic that they
won't acknowledge that they're asking the Player's Association to
leave a lot of money on the table.

The Company You Keep

I was on the fence in this debate until the players offered the drastic
24% salary cut across the board.

Sure, it was designed to keep a system that they had mastered, but at
least it was a significant move.

I applauded the veterans who were sacrificing a tremendous amount of money
so the next generation could have the system they did. What other sports
have athletes who would do that?

If Bettman was serious about a compromise, he would have submitted a
soft cap proposal. Had he done so, I would have respected him as a real
partner in negotiations.

But instead, he offered minimal concessions, and arrogantly re-defined the
24% give-back to further reduce higher salaries.

That was proof of Bettman's heavy-handed tactics with a single-minded
intent to break the player's union at any cost.

If you're on that bandwagon, I change my mind and will wish
you good tidings and a happy new year.

But you're still an idiot.

-Gabe

Amidst all the cba hoopla, there is a truth that I have yet
to read in the media.

Gary Bettman is getting a bad rap.

Sure, the guy reminds me of a cross between Alvin the chipmunk
and Dennis Hopper's character in Blue Velvet.

And he's not in the same universe as other league commissioners
like Stern and Tagliabue, who can lead a league to success with
a combination of street smarts, charisma and intelligence.

Bettman has a smug condescension that rivals David Spade but
exhibits none of the wit.

But the guy's been a lightning rod, taking criticism that should
be directed at the owners he represents.

Expansion? Bah, every owner wanted to pocket the extra bucks,
and the NHLPA lusted after the additional jobs.

Quality of the game? Pshaw, Bettman hadn't watched a game of
hockey before he was hired away from the NBA to the NHL. Hockey
operations is left to hockey lifers like Brian Burke and
Colin Campbell.

Bettman was brought in for one reason only - to make the league
more money. And if you look at it objectively, he put forward
a pretty savvy business plan.

I guess that perspective is about as popular as Marv Albert
at the Knicks City Dancers' Christmas party.

But that shouldn't block the facts.

-- The First CBA --

The expiring CBA was a brilliantly laid out plan.

Players would be bound to one team from the draft for a decade
or more.

Free agency wouldn't hit for at least a few years. And it when
it did, all the cards were in the owners' hands.

Arbitration would measure a player's value relative to similar
players across the league.

And if an owner didn't like the award, he could walk away from
the ruling. And then, if another team didn't sign the person for
at least 80% of that salary, they would get the rights back.

Want to buck the system and sign a star player? Well, the original
team has the right to match. But if they choose not to, they get
five years of first round draft picks.

What could a player do?

Well, they could wait until they were about 30 years old and then
be an unrestricted free agent.

Or they could sit out ... until they were about 30 years old.

It was a detailed execution whose structure favored the owners
by leaps and bounds ... except it didn't factor in the owners
themselves.

Owners caved easily to restricted free agent demands. Mediocre
unrestricted free agents won the lottery annually. Draftees were
given bonus structures that were ways to circumvent the rules that
were in place to protect the owners. And the players did it all
with no structural leverage.

--- The CBA Today ---

When NHL suit Bill Daly now says the league wants cost certainty,
and that the players should take a set percentage of actual revenue,
it's a smoke screen.

Bettman is simply trying to shield the simple fact that the
owners are fighting each other like kids in a sandbox.

And he knows that the NHLPA sees right through it, which is why
Bettman must adopt a strict "hard cap" approach. There can be
no intelligent negotiation when Bettman represents idiots.

And it's pathetic.

When the Carolina owner signs Federov out of spite from the
Detroit owner for $10 million per year, why should the rest of
the players accept a smaller pie to work with?

If Bobby Clarke wants to spend $9 million a year on a power
forward with a bad back, why should that minimize how a deserving
player on his team should make two years later.

A hard cap is simply a way for owners to protect themselves from
themselves.

It's a way of letting them make poor judgments on long-term
contracts and be able to say "whoops" later on.

Any other explanation is a smokescreen.

The NHLPA has addressed the owners' financial concerns individually,
with ideas such as a luxury tax for the top spending teams,
an immediate "give-back" on contracts, and entry-level restrictions.

But it's pointless.

Gary Bettman already handed the NHL owners the perfect structure
to financially manage the game and they bludgeoned the opportunity.

The only fun point about the NHL's current events? Bobby Clarke
seems intent on seizing the "up yours, I have my owner's money and
I'm going to spend it" award from the Rangers. He signed RJ Umberger
for $1.5 million per year today.

And somewhere Bettman inhales his oxygen mask and screams for
Simon and Theodore ...

-Gabe

Have I mentioned recently that Colin Campbell is a petty
little man with a New York vendetta?

How can I put him in context?

The recent Quizno's mascots have more integrity than Campbell.

I'd rather entrust the league operations to Carrot Top than this
thin-skinned disgruntled employee of MSG.

I've ranted before with past facts, so let's jump right into the
recent episode that merits your attention.

The Bertuzzi Incident

The punishment to Todd Bertuzzi was fine. Indeed, it was the
right decision because of the severity of the injury to Moore.

But, as Larry Brooks noted before I had time to pen an article,
coach Mark Crawford got off scott free.

Joe Sakic gave his perspective, explaining that ultimately it was
Bertuzzi who committed the infraction, not the coach.

But let's compare the situation to a past New York scenario.

The Columbus Game

Early last season, Bryan Trottier ended the Columbus Blue Jacket
game by putting Kristof Oliwa, Sandy McCarthy and Dale Purinton
on the ice in the final three seconds, sparking an inevitable brawl.

Colin Campbell decided that by placing those players on the ice
in a game that was already decided, the coach should be punished
with a two-game suspension.

Fine. So let's use that as a precedent.

The Nucks-Avs game

Let's forget for a second that Crawford smirked after Bertuzzi
laid out Moore. You can't penalize a coach for a facial expression.

But let's recognize that Crawford whipped his team into a revenge
frenzy, with forward Brad May acknowledging the existence of a bounty
on Moore's head.

And even after the injury, Crawford was STILL sending out his
pugilists on the ice in the final few minutes of a 9-2 game. It's
safe to venture that constitutes an "already-decided game."

Isn't this, at the least, the equivalent of sending out your
enforcers in the final seconds of a tough game?

Shouldn't Mark Crawford, using the New York incident as precedent,
get at least a two-game suspension?

Different Rules for New York

So chalk up another ruling that distinctly separates Colin Campbell's
suspensions for the Rangers versus the rest of the league.

It is so blatant that were the Rangers a team with any on-ice success,
it would be a major issue.

I wish Campbell would leave the league office and go to another team
so we can be rid of his ineptness at the league, and watch him fail
when he can't ride on the coattails of Keenan or Gretzky.

-Gabe

So, Messier does not want to leave New York.

Isn't that a loyal gesture - the Captain going down the ship?
It brings a tear to the eye ... or perhaps not.

Let's review.

History

Some scribes have taken great pains to explain that Messier has
never been traded as a playoff rental.

Of course, Messier has left his Captaincy behind for teams that
offer more money in the offseason.

His first entrance to New York was motivated by money - the
Oilers couldn't afford him, while the brights lights of NY could.

And who will forget when Neil Smith "lowballed" him with the same
salary that Gretzky took to play alongside him as a free agent,
which prompted Messier to take a million more per season in Vancouver.

After the 'Nucks indicated they wanted to re-sign him at a reduced
salary, Messier jilted them and came back to the dollars of MSG.

Maybe this was glossed over in the early-mid-90's when he was winning
Cups, but ten years later it's worth noting. Heck, seven years as
Captain of teams that don't make the playoffs should at least bring
some questions.

Hilton Head

Also lost in the rebuilding process was Messier's declaration that
he would not decide his future until he took time off after the
season.

You know the drill - Messier goes fishing until August, where his
team's GM is left unaware whether Mark plans to join the team.

The GM is on the phone July 1, trying to determine if he needs
to go after a new centerman now that free agency begins? Screw it,
Messier is fishing.

The GM is sending faxes because potential coaches want to know if
Messier plans to return? Bah, a "Friends" rerun is on.

New York, It's a Helluva Town

Allow this cynical writer a turn to try a different spin.

If Messier is seriously considering a return to the NHL after this
season, there is only one team in the NHL that would not only pay
him more than he's worth, but also let him fish in Hilton Head until
August before he makes that decision.

More, there is only one general manager who would be willing to
let that scenario play out.

And, lucky for him, the general manager (Sather) resides in the city
(New York).

So by staying in New York, rather than leaving for a playoff team
like Detroit, Messier is keeping his future open.

Because if he leaves, the chance that he will be able to rest on
a boat knowing a roster spot is assured diminishes.

Rebuilding Means Rebuilding

A few players with leadership qualities have been, and will be,
moved before Tuesday.

Some will be sorely missed - Leetch, Simon and Barnaby (if dealt),
chief among them.

But rebuilding means exactly that; it's not a remodeling job.
When respected hockey minds shrug their shoulders at why the Rangers
have been so poor, you need a do-over.

Trade Him!

So if Sather truly wants to rebuild the Rangers and earn this
writer's complete respect, then he needs to trade Messier.

There is no excuse to not do so.

If you cite fan allegiance, then why trade Brian Leetch, especially
when Leetch didn't run off to greener pastures when given the
chance?

If you cite leadership, then why deal leaders like Leetch and
(probably) Barnaby?

If you cite the lack of a return, then why deal a guy like Simon
by explaining that he can be brought back over the summer, while
Messier can do the same as a ufa?

This "free ride" crap is the root of this team's demise. And now that
a sweeping rebuilding is on the way, it needs to include Messier.

I'm trying hard not to rant about Messier because that is counter-
productive. If you like him, fine.

But in a rebuilding process that places everyone on the block,
then Messier should be no different.

And if the Red Wings offer a draft choice or mid-level prospect
for him, then Sather needs to take it.

-Gabe

A respected Ranger fan put it best on Wednesday night when
he poignantly wrote:

"I'm feeling strange feelings for Sather right now
... kind of like ... *less* hate."

So, since journalistic integrity should have some value, I
need to give credit where it is due.

And considering that I cringe at the sight and sound of him,
it is with a shaking thumb that I point it up and in
Glen Sather's direction.

Of course, if Messier is still here after Tuesday w