Ya Gotta Bereave

In a word, it was brutal. How brutal? This one statistic, more than any other, summed it up best.  Of the 53 innings in the 2015 World Series, the Royals led in only 13 of them. And keep in mind, five of those 13 innings came in game two.

Going into the fall classic, the Mets had one advantage over the Royals: their starting pitching. And with the exception of game two, the starters certainly did their job. So why was this series so lopsided? Why did a team which led for 40 out of 53 innings and had late-inning leads in four of the five games in the series come up short? Three reasons: a lack of clutch hitting, a porous bullpen and shoddy defense. In every measurable metric, sans the starting pitching, the Royals were by far the superior team.

Sadly, you could see this day coming. Since the trade deadline deals that Sandy Alderson pulled off, the Mets were a streaky team offensively, led by Yoenis Cespedes. There's no denying he carried the team from the dog days of August through mid September, when he began to cool off. Indeed, this team feasted off of some of the worst pitching in the National League. The Mets went from one of the worst scoring teams in the majors to one of the best virtually overnight.

But they lived primarily on the long ball, more so than any other contending team. Coupled with their starting pitching, they had a huge advantage over both the Dodgers and the Cubs. So much so, that their two biggest flaws - the bullpen and shaky defense - never played a factor. Terry Collins was able to ride his starters deep into games, even using his closer to get the final six outs in the deciding game against the Dodgers.

But the Royals were successfully able to expose the Mets' flaws. Their ability to put the ball in play severely tested a defense that was in over its head. And the bullpen was, for all intents and purposes, a total failure. From Jeurys Familia's blown saves in games one, four and five, to Tyler Clippard's inability to get crucial outs as a set-up man, it was painful to watch. Small wonder why Collins elected to allow Matt Harvey to start the 9th inning in game five. He was about as close to perfection as any pitcher had been for the Amazin's in the entire series.

And then there were the errors committed by David Wright, Daniel Murphy and Lucas Duda, all of them costly. Wright's poor throw in game one set up the eventual game-winning run; Murphy's inability to field a ground ball opened up the flood gates in game four; and Duda's wide throw to the plate in game five allowed the tying run to score. Marv Throneberry would've been proud.

But it was their lack of clutch hitting that really did the Mets in. The bottom of the 6th inning in game five was a textbook example of how not to win a series. The Mets loaded the bases with no outs and the most they were able to score was one run. One stinking run! Conversely, whenever the Royals got runners in scoring position, as they tended to do in the later innings, they usually plated them. They put on a clinic in every game except game three.

So now that it's over, where do the Mets go from here? Clearly, Alderson has some decisions to make. He's already put to bed one question: whether to bring back Collins. The organization signed him to a two-year extension. While I'm not a huge Collins' fan, I have to admit, there weren't a lot of options. He may not be the best, but he's far from the worst this team could do and, unlike the meltdown that occurred with the Washington Nationals, his players seem to love him. Go figure.

Next up will be deciding whether to tender offers to both Cespedes and Murphy. Both played integral parts in getting the Mets to both the postseason and the World Series. Murphy had himself one of the great runs in baseball, smacking a home run in six consecutive games. But both players did virtually nothing in the Series. Not only that, both made huge errors. Cespedes got doubled off first base when a liner by Duda was caught, ending game four and let's not forget the aforementioned flub by Murphy earlier in the game.

If I had to guess, I'd say the Mets let Cespedes walk without an offer. No way they're going to give him the $200 million he's looking for, and for once, I'm on their side in this. The problem with Cespedes is that he's vulnerable against top-notch pitching. He either drives the ball to Pluto or he grounds out. Murphy, however, is another story. For the right price, I'd bring him back. Yes he's a liability in the field, but his ability to play multiple positions, coupled by a low strikeout ratio, will make him a good fit.

That leaves the bullpen as Alderson's next and most essential project. Clippard has pitched his last game in a Mets' uniform. Good riddance. That means a replacement for him is essential. Addison Reed could fill his shoes. Or Alderson could look outside the system and acquire someone either through trade or free agency. He will also have to find a lefty. Every good team in baseball has one in the pen that can get valuable outs, except the Mets. And if Bartolo Colon can be enticed to accept a relief role, he could be that bridge that Collins has been looking for.

The loss of Cespedes means that we will find out what Juan Lagaris is made of. If Alderson isn't comfortable with him in center, a replacement will have to be found. That won't be easy. Good center fielders don't grow on trees. Michael Conforto should come into his own as the permanent left fielder. He has good power and can hit for average. And while Duda will never win a gold glove at first, he's still better than anybody else in the system.

Come July, the Mets will have arguably the best starting rotation in baseball with the return of Zach Wheeler from Tommy John surgery. If they can hold their own offensively, they will be contenders for the eastern division of the National League. They may have gotten shellacked by the Royals, but brighter days are ahead for this franchise.

Mets Will Win, If...

Going into their first World Series in 15 years, the New York Mets are slight favorites over the Kansas City Royals. The reason comes down to starting pitching. Put succinctly, the Mets have a huge advantage here. All four of their starters have extremely impressive ERAs, much more impressive than the Royals.

In fact, when you break it down, both teams are fairly close everywhere else. Both have impressive lineups that can inflict damage on the other team's pitching; though, as we shall see, each do it differently. And both clubs have solid closers in their bullpen. But it's their starters that give the Mets the edge and why many feel they should prevail in the Series.

Yet I remain cautiously optimistic. Why? Because until now the Mets' starters haven't been truly tested. The Dodgers' lineup was, well, a joke. At best, there were maybe two or three legitimate hitters on it. The Cubs' lineup was built around the home run. They mauled the Cardinals in the divisional series. Against the more potent arms of the Mets, they wilted.

The Royals won't go away so quietly. While they can hit the occasional home run, they much prefer to smack the ball around to all areas of the park. They took apart the Blue Jays' pitching in the previous series. They can test a pitching staff like few lineups can.

This presents a huge problem for the Mets, especially their likely game two starter, Jacob deGrom. On two occasions deGrom was on the ropes in this post season: game five against the Dodgers and game three against the Cubs. He fell behind early and ofen and put his team in trouble. His pitch count was extremely high through the first four innings of both games. What saved him was the inability of both the Dodgers and Cubs to capitalize on their opportunities.

If the same thing should happen to him against the Royals, it will cost him this time. DeGrom won't be the beneficiary of either a lousy hitting team or a sloppy and undisciplined one. Kansas City's lineup is patient enough to wait him out and make him throw a hittable strike. Also, since they don't strike out a lot, deGrom will have to entice the Royals' hitters to hit 'em where they are rather than where they ain't.

With that in mind, it becomes imperative that game one starter Matt Harvey win the opener. Harvey is for all intents and purposes the most complete starter the Mets have. If they are to win the Series, Harvey must win his games. Period.

Also, Terry Collins will have to get solid performances from his bullpen. And that means more than just Jeurys Familia. At some point Tylor Clippard and Addison Reed are going to be on the mound and both must come through. Expecting these young starters to go eight innings each game is way too much to ask.

So there you have it. The Mets will win if both Jacob deGrom and Matt Harvey win their games and if the bullpen holds up. If either falters, it will be another close but no cigar year for the Amazins.

Prediction: Mets in six.

Mets vs. Cubs Prediction

For the first time in nine years, the New York Mets will play for the right to get into the World Series. I needn't remind any of you that the last time didn't go particularly well. The image of Carlos Beltran with the bat on his shoulders taking a called third strike has been seared into our collective consciousness. When you couple that with the epic '07 collapse down the stretch, it has been a long and bitter nine years.

But if Mets' fans were chomping at the bits to get back to the World Series, just imagine what Cubs fans have been going through. The last time their team won a pennant was 1945; the last time it won a championship was 1908. At least Mets' fans can take solace that their team has been to four World Series, winning two of them, all since the end of World War II.

Before I begin my series breakdown, I think it only fair to tip my hat to both Mets' management and its owners. While it pains me to admit it, Fred and Jeff Wilpon deserve some credit for giving the green light to Sandy Alderson to make the moves necessary to bring a division title to New York. And Alderson made the most of the trade deadline, getting Yoenis Cespedes and several other key players.

Those trades, along with an underachieving Washington Nationals team - picked by many as a slam dunk for the division, possibly the league championship - allowed the Mets to take this division. Prior to the trades, the Mets were barely a .500 team.

Now on to the matchups. A look at both teams shows that they are virtually identical in runs scored, home runs and team ERA. What that means is that, barring a miscue, this series should go 6 or 7 games. The Mets' have an edge in position players everywhere, except 1st and 3rd base. And they have a deeper starting rotation than the Cubs. However, the Cubs have without a doubt the best starter in the series in Jake Arrieta. The Mets are going to have to beat him at least once in this series in order to advance.

If there is one Achilles heal for the Mets, it's their bullpen. Put succinctly, it's brutal. How brutal? In game 5 against the Dodgers, Terry Collins was forced to use starter Noah Syndergaard in the 7th inning and needed to have his closer Jeurys Familiar pitch the last two innings for the save. The Mets' starters are going to have to go at least seven or eight innings in their starts. Otherwise, this series could get ugly fast.

And even allowing for that, at some point Collins will have to ask his bullpen to get a few outs. Look for him to lean on 42 year old Bartolo Colon to provide some valuable relief. He doesn't have much of a choice. Tyler Clippard, obtained at the trade deadline as the set-up man for Familia, has been a bust of late.

It comes down to this. If the Mets' bullpen can get a few outs in this series, the Mets will prevail; if, not, the Cubs will advance to the World Series for the first time since 1945. The heart says Mets; the head says Cubs.

Prediction: Mets in 7.

Nightmare at Dallas

I was going to title this posting Return of the Fumble, but the above title will suffice. Besides, there was only one true culprit that November day at the Meadowlands and at least Bob Gibson, the offensive coordinator who called that ridiculous play, got his just deserts. Last Sunday's loss had a litany of villains.

Let's start with the head coach. It pains me to say this, but Tom Coughlin needs to go. He simply isn't up to handling a team the way a head coach needs to. There is simply no excuse for him not making sure his assistant coach and quarterback were on the same page. With just under 2 minutes left in the game, up by three and the ball at the 2 yard line, with no timeouts left for Dallas, how in the world do you allow a pass play to be called by your offensive coordinator? The correct call is a run up the middle. If you get in, the game is over; if you don't, you run another 40 seconds off the clock and you kick a field goal. The Cowboys would have about 58 seconds left in which to march the length of the field instead of a minute 38 seconds. Tom blew it big time.

But even allowing for the Coughlin meltdown, Eli Manning should've known that the Cowboys had no timeouts left - and if he didn't, shame on him. If he didn't have a man open in the end zone, the correct play was to fall down on the ball and take the sack. Again, the Giants would've kicked a field goal and Dallas would've gotten the ball back with under a minute to play. Manning should know better. No excuse.

But now we come down to the defensive coordinator: Steve Spagnuolo. For most of the game, his players made life hell for the Cowboys. They relentlessly pursued Dallas and forced three turnovers, two of which lead to scores for the Giants. But on the last two Cowboy possessions, they were nowhere to be found. Saying they were soft would do a disservice to the word soft. Dallas marched down the field twice virtually uncontested. The winning drive took all of 90 seconds. Tony Romo could've had a ham sandwich and a cup of coffee in the pocket, that's how pathetic the Giants' defense looked. This was the epitome of a prevent defense.

All three of these geniuses have a lot of explaining to do. They didn't just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, like that infamous 1978 Giants team did that November Sunday; they let a team that had outplayed them but made several bad plays steal a game they had no right to win.

That's right, this was a game the Giants by all accounts should not have won, but were less than 2 minutes away from taking. The Cowboys had the ball most of the game and controlled the line of scrimmage. Had they not turned the ball over three times, the Giants would never have been in a position to win at all.

And that's what makes this loss so brutal. For most of the game, the Giants teased their fans and had them thinking, maybe we're not so bad after all. And then the roof fell in and reality came back to bite them in the ass. They've had moments like this in the Coughlin era - way too many for my taste. But this one stung more than all the others combined.

The Giants will try to spin this by saying, "it's one game, we'll learn from this and not let it happen again." Sure they will. And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you for a wooden nickel.

The football Giants have been making way too many excuses for way too long. It has been four years since the team last had a winning record and that just happened to be the year they last won the Super Bowl.

The sad truth is that if the Giants ever expect Eli Manning to deliver another title they are going to have to get him a coaching staff and yes a G.M. (you didn't think I had forgotten about you, Jerry Reese?). Both the offensive and defensive lines are a mess and both the secondary and linebackers are thin. John Beason's absence proved fatal on that last Cowboy drive.

It is the job of the general manager to get the best players for his coaching staff, and it is the coaching staff's job to make sure they get the best out of those players come game time. Both have been utter failures these last few years and it's high time that Steve Tisch and John Mara realized this and pulled the plug on this current group.

Enough with the lame excuses. Enough with coming up short and allowing games to get away. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over. For the Giants, that has become a mantra.

Rangers Pony Up To Keep Stepan

In the end, the Rangers didn't have any other choice. They couldn't afford to let their number one center go to arbitration only to save, what, a couple hundred thousand dollars. So they bit down hard, went all in and signed Derek Stepan to a six-year deal worth $39 million. That's $6.5 million per year. The deal also comes with a no-movement clause, which means, barring Stepan taking an oozie into the Garden and airing the joint out, he's not going anywhere.

Of course the key question begging to be answered is this: Is Stepan worth the money? The answer is yes and no. Yes, because, with the exception of Derick Brassard, there was no one else on the roster capable of putting up the numbers Stepan did last year and pretty much has for his entire tenure with the Blueshirts. Face it, with Marty St. Louis retiring after last year's aborted playoff run, goals are going to be a premium this coming season. Kevin Hayes, Jesper Fast and J.T. Miller may turn out to be excellent scorers, or they could be busts, or something in between. No one knows for sure. Losing Stepan or, worse, having an unhappy Stepan would have been disastrous, especially given that the window for this team is at best two years.

No, because he isn't really a number one center not in the strictest sense of what a number one center means. He's not as valuable as Jonathan Toews, who just signed his own multi-year contract with the Blackhawks for the same amount of money. Seriously, who would you rather have as your number one, Stepan or Toews? The fact is when you compare Derek Stepan to other contending teams' top centers, he comes up short. Good, yes; great, no.

Over his relatively brief career with the Rangers, Stepan has been a reliable scorer. But his two biggest handicaps are his lack of size and his inability to win face-offs; the latter proving far more costly, especially for a team that thrives on puck possession the way the Rangers do. It was nothing short of embarrassing that the number one face-off man was the number four center, Dominic Moore.

Indeed that is one glaring weakness which new General Manager Jeff Gorton failed to address. Sadly, the Rangers will enter this coming campaign a weaker team than they were when they were unceremoniously booted from last year's playoffs. Why? Because Gorton only has $500 thousand of cap space left to his disposal. And, mind you, that was after he was forced to dump Carl Hagelin's contract in exchange for Emerson Etem's.

Realistically, the Rangers are going to have a hard time coming close to matching what they did last year. They are no-where near as deep as they were two years ago when they went to the finals and it is hard to see them winning the division with this squad, much less the Presidents' Trophy or Stanley Cup championship. They still have an imposing defense corps, but they could use some help up front. If Gorton could dangle one of his prized defensemen - say, Dan Girardi or Kevin Klein - for a proven goal scorer with some grit, that could mean the difference between an early playoff exit or a deep playoff run.

21 And Counting

In the end, the team that was built with one goal in mind - to win the Stanley Cup - not only failed in its mission, it didn't even manage to get back to the finals. The Presidents' Trophy Rangers were blanked on their home ice for the second game in a row. The team that hadn't lost a game 7 in its building since, well, forever, was thoroughly drubbed by a Tampa Bay Lightning team that only three days earlier had been lit up for seven goals. Like that great T.S. Eliot poem, they didn't go out with a bang but with a whimper.

Consider this: the Rangers scored more goals in the 3rd period of game 6 in Tampa (five) than they scored in all four games at the Garden combined (four). They were so inept in their building they made the Lightning players look like Bob Gainey clones. For those of you too young to remember, Bob Gainey was arguably the greatest defensive forward to ever play the game. He was to hockey what Bill Russell was to basketball.

So how did this Jekyll / Hyde of a series turn out to be the nightmare of all nightmares for the Rangers? Well, first off, it wasn't just this series. The Blueshirts had been flirting with disaster ever since the playoffs began. Let's not forget that they were 1:41 away from going down in five to the Capitals. Face it, if Braden Holtby doesn't whiff on Chris Kreider's shot, they never make it into overtime and instead of talking about their disappointing exit in the conference finals, we're talking about the great upset in the second round. And even the five games it took them to dispatch the Penguins - easily the weakest team in the playoffs - were all close games. The last two wins, both in overtime, could easily have gone the other way.

Funny, for a team that racked up a franchise-record 53 wins, they never once dominated in any of their postseason contests. Even in the three games where they managed to get their offense going - game 6 against the Caps and games 4 and 6 against the Lightning - they were badly outplayed for huge stretches by their opponent. In each game, their world-class goaltender, Henrik Lundqvist, either held onto to a lead his team seemed determined to hand back or gave his team the chance it needed to regain its footing and surge ahead. To say he was the team's best player would be an understatement.

Even last night, Lundqvist did his best to give his team a chance to win. He stood on his head for two periods, making save after save. He robbed Tyler Johnson point blank just outside his crease. The save was eerily similar to the one he made on Steven Stamkos in game 6. However in that game, seconds after the King made his heroic stop, his team responded by scoring a goal. Last night, there was no heroics by the men in blue. This time, there was no last-minute goal to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Even their world-class goalie looked mortal in that all-decisive 3rd period.

So now that this season is over, what do the Rangers do next? To be sure, Glen Sather has some decisions to make. While the core of this team is certainly good, it was obvious from the opening drop of the puck, it had some glaring weaknesses. I addressed some of them when the playoff began. To be sure, those roosters came home to crow in the conference finals.

For starters, I'm fairly certain Marty St. Louis has played his last game as a Ranger, perhaps even the NHL. He looked every second of his 39 years in this tournament. Expect Sather to utilize his $5 million salary elsewhere. The Rangers have some cap issues, thanks to the trade for Keith Yandle, and even with the league expected to increase its salary cap by $4 million, Sather will have to use all his skills to tweak this team so it can go the distance in the postseason.

Here's what I would do if I were the G.M. I would definitely sign Derek Stepan, but I would not offer Carl Hagelin a contract. If he files for arbitration and he wins, I would trade him. He did absolutely nothing after the Pittsburgh series. If anything, the style with which he plays is the reason the Rangers are playing golf right now instead of getting ready to play for the Cup. Instead of a flashy skater, I'd try to pry away a punishing winger who can park his ass in front of the opposing goalie's net and score a few goals. The Ranges don't have a single forward outside of Kreider who is capable of doing this. In fact, so inept were they, Alain Vigneault was forced to use defenseman Dan Boyle up front on the power play several times in this series.

Then I'd address the face-off issue that plagued this team throughout most of the season. It was nothing short of an embarrassment that their number one face-off man happened to be their number four center. Every other team in the final four all had centers with impressive face off stats. I would make every effort to get a center who can win a face off AND score. I like Dominick Moore, but if he is your go-to guy to win a face-off in a crucial spot in a game, you're screwed.  Either way, you're not going very far in the playoffs. Period!

Think about it. A first line consisting of Derrick Brassard, centering Rick Nash on the left and a healthy Mats Zucharello on the right, followed by a line of, say, Antoine Vermette centering Derek Stepan on the right and Chris Kreider on the left. The Blackhawks have even more cap issues than the Rangers, so it is unlikely they will be able to resign Vermette in the off season. If Sather is creative, he can have a formidable 1-2 punch upfront. Stephan moving to wing makes perfect sense. The way he positions himself in the offensive zone, he looks more like a winger than a center anyway. If Sather can't address the center issue via free agency, maybe Kevin Hayes could be part of a package to land one.

That would leave J.T. Miller centering Jesper Faust and James Shepard on the third line, with Dominic Moore centering a yet to be determined fourth line. A little too lean for your tastes? Consider that the Lightning got all but two of their goals in this series from their top two lines. Depth only means something if your top gunners come through. In this series, the Lightning's top gunners ran rings around the Rangers top gunners. It wasn't even close. Take away the five point night Brassard had in game 6 and it was a joke.

And then there's the coach. Alain Vigneault was the polar opposite of his predecessor. He treated his players like men with respect and dignity, unlike John Tortorella, who acted like a dickhead most of the time and drove his players like a drill sergeant. When he was fired, you could hear the entire Rangers' locker room exhale.

But Vigneault has two glaring weaknesses that unfortunately came back to bite this team. The first is he is stubborn to a fault. Not once in this year's playoff, or last year's for that matter, did he make any adjustments to his system.  It was clear that every team that played them knew what to expect. The Capitals pounded and pounded the Rangers and kept them primarily to the perimeter of the ice, limiting their scoring chances. The Lightning applied the same strategy, but unlike the Caps, had the talent to make it work. The result was that the Rangers, after winning the first game 2-1, never won another close game in the series. Credit their coach, John Cooper, for having the smarts to switch gears and convince his team to change their style from offense first to defense first. He definitely outcoached Vigneault in this series.

The second weakness is almost as bad. For all his professional demeanor, Vigneault is simply too loyal to his players. They rarely, if ever, were benched for their failures. Yes, they might miss a shift or two for a blown assignment, but they could always count on their coach having their back.  When it was painfully apparent that St. Louis had nothing in the gas tank, Vigneault still put him out on the power play. Compare and contrast him to Joel Quenneville, the Chicago Blackhawks coach, who pulled his goaltender when he gave up questionable goals in the Nashville series and even benched the player his GM traded a number one draft pick to obtain. In Quenneville's world, it's pretty simple: play well and get ice time, struggle and you ride the bench.

Sather must get his coach to be more amenable and less tolerant. If it was fair to criticize Tortorella for his shortcomings, then it's only fitting to hold Vigneault accountable for his. Systems and loyalty are all fine and dandy, but when that system isn't working or your players aren't measuring up, changes must be made. Throughout this whole season there were two constants: the Rangers were as predictable as dirt and, for the most part, they had carte blanche. If this isn't corrected, expect another disappointing postseason next year.

The good news is that, with a little tweaking, the Rangers have the horses to compete for the Stanley Cup next year; the bad news is that their window of opportunity is rapidly closing. Lundqvist is 33. Billy Smith, the great Islander goaltender, won the last of his four Cups when he was 33. The sands of time are running out on the King. He has maybe two or three years left in his prime. If the Rangers don't win the Cup by then, this team, which as played more playoff games than any other team over the last four years, will have to start over and rebuild.

And for the millions of Rangers' fans who have waited patiently since 1994 for another championship, it won't just be 21 years and counting; it might well be a decade or more.

Ironic, isn't it? When Sam Rosen said that '94 championship would last a lifetime, who knew he was being prophetic?

The Stars Come Out To Play

If the Rangers go on to win the Stanley Cup this year, they may well look back at game 4 as the turning point. Down 2 games to 1, the Blueshirts had been thoroughly outplayed in this series. Worse, their star players - Henrik Lundqvist, Rick Nash and Marty St. Louis - were simply abysmal.

Well if there is such a thing as redemption in sports, all three players had it in droves. Lundqvist stopped 38 of 39 shots - 18 of them coming in the second period alone - Nash had 3 points, including 2 goals, and St. Louis scored his first goal of the playoffs on the power play that ostensibly iced the game for his team.

And as the Rangers top two wingers and all-world goaltender were rising to the occasion, their much-maligned defense, which looked more like Swiss cheese the last 2 games, shut down the Lightning's vaunted Triplets line. Keith Yandle, who Glen Sather mortgaged his team's future to obtain at the trade deadline, scored a goal and had 2 assists, and played arguably his best game of the postseason.

Funny how things can turn on a dime. 48 hours ago, the Rangers were on the verge of being run out of the playoffs on a rail; now they have turned this series into a best 2 out of 3, with 2 of those games at Madison Square Garden. They have the momentum AND home ice. If they win game 5 at home, they'll be in the driver's seat.

But as tempting as it might be for the Rangers to celebrate this win, there is still much for them to improve upon. Yes, they checked much better in this game; their center ice play in particular was noticeably improved from game 3. But they still committed too many turnovers and continued to take silly penalties which allowed the Lightning to dominate play throughout much of the second period. Make no mistake about it, without Lundqvist in net, Tampa might well have lit up the Rangers for the third game in a row.

For now, though, the Rangers and their fans can exhale. They aren't out of the woods just yet, but at least they can see the clearing ahead.

Houston We Have A Problem

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. During the first two rounds of these Stanley Cup playoffs all we heard from the Rangers is they couldn't get their speed game going because of the physical style of play of the Penguins and the Capitals. That, they said, was the reason for their lack of goal scoring. Just wait until we get to play our game and the goals will come, you'll see.

The Tampa Bay Lightning were supposed to be the perfect tonic for what ailed the Blueshirts; a team that, like them, had a good transition game and the ability to create scoring opportunities off the rush. Now we would finally see some goal scoring.

Well three games into this conference final round, the goals have come alright. Unfortunately for the Rangers, most of those goals have come off of Lightning sticks. In just the last two games, the Bolts have lit up Henrik Lundqvist to the tune of 12 goals against. To put it in perspective, that's only one less goal than he had allowed over the previous eight games combined. Do the math. 13 goals in eight games for a 1.63 goals against average vs. 12 goals in two games for a goals against average of 6.00. You don't have to be a mathematician to see where this is going.

Yes, the Rangers have found their speed game; yes, this series is a helluva lot more exciting than either of the last two. Hell, they're even scoring on the power play - four goals in the last two games. But the problem for the Rangers is they find themselves going skate to skate with a team that is putting on a clinic. The Rangers maybe going at warp six, but the Lightning are traveling at warp nine. They have been considerably quicker and far more opportunistic with their scoring chances than the Rangers. Their best forwards have run circles around the Rangers best forwards.

Adding insult to injury, the Rangers have been sloppy and undisciplined in this series. They have taken bad penalties and have had major defensive lapses in their own end. The team that was built around defense first has forgotten how to defend. And their world-class goaltender has been anything but that over the last two games. His whiff on the overtime goal by Nikita Kucherov in game three was as bad as anything I've seen from him since his rookie year in the league. If his play doesn't dramatically improve by game four, this series is going to end very quickly and another year will go by without a Cup.

It's time to admit the obvious. The Rangers, despite all the hoopla about their "speed game," really aren't all that explosive a team. Yes, they were tied for third in the NHL in scoring, but a lot of those goals came early in the year. Throughout a good chunk of their run to the Presidents' Trophy, they won the bulk of their games by scores of 3-2, 2-1 and 1-0. They might not like low-scoring games, but they typically win them. And if the Rangers have any hope of winning this series and extending their postseason, they had better give up this suicide mission they're on and return to their roots.

If they don't, the Lightning will run over them like a freight train.

Stanley Cup Conference Finals Predictions

Only four teams are left standing. Two weeks from now, it will be two. This weekend, the Eastern and Western conference finals begin. In the East, the Rangers face-off against the Tampa Bay Lightning. In the West, the Anaheim Mighty Ducks and Chicago Blackhawks duke it out. Which two teams will prevail and why?

Well, at the risk of sounding my own horn, two of the teams I picked before the playoffs began - the Rangers and Blackhawks - are still standing. Why? Simple, both teams have the best goaltending in the tournament. That's also the reason I'm picking them to move on to the finals.

Eastern Conference Finals: Rangers vs. Lightning.

The Lightning are loaded upfront. What makes them scary is that their best forward - Steven Stamkos - isn't even on their best line. They're young, fast and explosive and they will give the Rangers all they can handle. And, no doubt, Ryan Callahan and Brian Boyle will be out to prove that Glen Sather made a mistake by letting them go.

But while they may be front loaded, the Blueshirts are still a deeper team, even without Mats Zuccarello. And then there's the defensive pairings and goaltending which heavily favor New York. Henrik Lundqvist hasn't had a bad game in the playoffs, while his counterpart - Ben Bishop - has been lit up twice. He's good, but hardly world class. In what will likely be a low-scoring and tight-checking series, the Rangers should be favored, even if only slightly.

The Lightning went 3-0 against the Rangers this season, but those games were played early in the season before New York went on their Presidents' Trophy run. They're a much different and better team now.

Prediction: Rangers in seven.

Western Conference Finals: Ducks vs. Blackhawks.

Okay, I admit it. I didn't think the Ducks were this good. In fact, I had them bowing out in the second round. But while Anaheim has managed to go 8-1 this postseason, they've done so against two pretty mediocre teams. Chicago is anything but mediocre. In fact, they're arguably the best team in the tournament.

The Ducks have the two best centers in the playoffs and can skate with anyone. But I've watched them and their Achilles heal is clearly in goal, where Frederik Andersen has been erratic and VERY beatable. If Corey Crawford lives up to his billing, this series could get out of hand quickly.

Prediction: Blackhawks in six. 

7th Heaven

Okay, they did it. They came back from the dead.  They came ALL the way back. Trailing 3-1 in the series and trailing 1-0 with less than two minutes to go in game 5, the Rangers found a way to pull it out and force a game 6 and then a game 7.

They kept fighting and fighting and just wouldn't go away. Consider this, at no point in this series did the Rangers lead in games until the very end. They even trailed in game 7, thanks to a poor start and a goal by Mark Messier wannabe Alex Ovechkin. But they came back and willed their way to an overtime win - their 10 straight at home in an elimination game - and in so doing, became the first team in NHL history to win a series after training 3-1 in two consecutive years.

As for the Caps, they lost for the 5th time after holding a 3-1 series lead. No doubt they will spend the offseason pondering what went wrong. They were just 1:41 away from advancing to their first conference final since 1997. But they just couldn't put that final nail in the Rangers' coffin. This one will hurt a long time.

So how did the Rangers pull it off? How did they manage to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Karma? Destiny? Resilience? Talent? Luck? How about all of the above?

Let's face it, they hardly played like the team that won the Presidents' Trophy. They were sporadic at best and never quite got their speed game going. Part of that was due to an excellent game plan by Capitals' coach Barry Trotz. The rest? Well, as I mentioned in two earlier pieces, this Rangers' team, while good, never dominated their opponents the way you'd expect a Cup contender to. Of their 53 wins, only 18 were decided by more than two goals. Only the Anaheim Ducks faired worse among playoff teams.

Winning the majority of your games by one or two goals may seem like the perfect strategy for a long playoff run, but it's also playing with fire. Many of those regular season games might just as easily have gone the other way. Consider this: each of the Rangers four overtime wins could've been losses, in which case they'd be playing golf now instead of preparing to host the Tampa Bay Lightning Saturday. How's that for luck?

But I'd be doing them a huge disservice if I didn't acknowledge that for all their fortuitousness, this bunch of Rangers has a boat-load of character. They've shown it all season long. Some how, some way, they manage to win games lesser teams would've lost. This may not be the most talented group of players to don the Rangers' logo, but they are the most resilient I've seen since - dare I say it? - 1994. To paraphrase a line from the Godfather 3, Just when you thought they were out, they pull themselves back in.

But while they are resilient, they are hardly cocky. Unlike the Caps, who shot their mouths off after losing game 6, the Rangers kept a low profile and concentrated on the game at hand. This singular focus, I believe, is the reason they never panicked once throughout this series. Even when the Caps were surging late in game 6 and early in the overtime in game 7, they kept their composure.  They bent, but they never broke.

And now they have reached the conference finals for the second season in a row. They are eight victories away from winning their first Stanley Cup in 21 years. Only Tampa and either the Ducks or Chicago Blackhawks stand in their way. The series against the Lightning should be a breath of fresh air for a team that was bounced around like a basketball by Washington. Both teams ostensibly employ the same system: an uptempo speed game. The Lightning are more front loaded than the Rangers, but the Blueshirts are deeper and have a huge edge in goal. Funny, I remember saying that about the Caps and look what almost happened.

The Rangers are halfway home; halfway towards realizing the goal they set for themselves the night they lost in overtime to the L.A. Kings in game 5 of the Finals last June. They're talented, determined, resilient, focused and, yes, lucky. But then find me a championship team that didn't have a little bit of luck going for it? Maybe this time destiny will shine on them. Maybe this time they get to be the bride instead of the bride's maid.

This much I can tell you: if they're in overtime in game 7 of the Finals, I wouldn't bet against them.

A Stay of Execution?

I'll admit it. I thought it was over. Admit it. You thought it was over too.

After Curtis Glencross converted his own rebound past Henrik Lundqvist with 9:06 remaining to give the Caps a 1 nothing lead, the Blueshirts were looking like toast.

The Presidents Trophy winners were less than ten minutes away from bowing out in the second round of the playoffs with their skates between their legs.

And then...

With less than two minutes remaining in their season, Derek Stepan, who had his best game of the playoffs - perhaps the whole damn season - gained the Caps zone, pulled up and fed a perfect pass to Chris Kreider who one-timed a shot passed Braden Holtby, who is having the series of his life.

And just like that, tie game. The Garden erupted with joy as the Rangers forced overtime. And in the extra session, it was Stepan to the rescue again, setting up the winning goal by Ryan McDonagh off a feed from Jesper Fast.

Game over. Rangers win. They live to fight another day.

In a game which saw the Blueshirts dictate the pace early and pepper Holtby with 11 of the game's first 13 shots, it was poetic justice that the two goals they managed to score were the result of deflections. Pretty? No. Effective? Yes.

Now the scene shifts back to Washington where the Caps will be under pressure to close out the series or face a game seven at the Garden, where the Rangers are now a perfect 9 and 0 in elimination games. In their history the Capitals have blown 3-1 series leads four times. That burden will be weighing heavily on them Sunday. Talk about a turn of events. The Caps were this close to moving on. Now they've given their opponents something they haven't had since game two of this series: momentum. 

The odds are still against the Rangers prevailing. Despite the emotional win, they are hardly out of the woods. Let's not forget they were 1:41 away from being shutout for the second time in three games. For all their resilience, they're still way too cute with the puck. Several times last night, they found themselves in ideal scoring situations and elected to pass rather than shoot. Kreider, who scored the tying goal, looked like Mother Teresa with the puck. I got it, no you take it. They won game five, but if they plan on winning games six and seven, they're going to have to bury the few opportunities they are afforded.

For now, though, they're alive. There WILL be a game six Sunday night. The season continues. Maybe the hockey gods will smile on them and they will go on to win the Cup, or maybe last night was just a temporary stay of execution. 

We'll know soon enough.

Do or Die for Rangers?

Going into Wednesday's game-four match with the Capitals, the prevailing sentiment among some hockey experts is that while it is important for the Rangers to tie the series, it is not, as of yet, a life or death situation. The Rangers, they argue, are the league's best team and have shown their resilience throughout the season many times. If any team can come back from a 3-1 series deficit, it is certainly them. After all, they came back from a 3-1 deficit against the Penguins last year and Pittsburgh that year was a considerably better team than this year's Washington team.  While such thinking is laudable, it is dangerous and I'll explain why.

Yes, the Rangers came back from a 3-1 deficit last year against the Penguins, but, contrary to the above statement, Pittsburgh was a flawed and vulnerable team that year. After winning the first game, the Blueshirts lost a tough game two in Pittsburgh, then returned home and stunk out the Garden in games three and four. Once they had regained their footing following the death of Marty St. Louis' mother, the Rangers ran off three straight wins en route to an improbable finals appearance.

This year's Capitals team is a much more complete team, both offensively and defensively, than last year's Penguins team. While they don't have the speed of the Rangers, they have done an outstanding job of taking away the middle of the ice, forcing the Blueshirts to the outside. Unlike last year's Rangers team that turned on the jets in game five, this year's team has played only one really poor period of hockey in the entire tournament. Every game has been highly contested and decided by one goal. The Rangers aren't in a 2-1 hole because of the way they've played, so much as the way their opponent has played. Expecting another come from behind miracle is wishful thinking to say the least.

And then there is the nagging question: Is this year's Rangers' team really better than last year's. On paper and certainly in the win/loss column, the answer appears to be yes. But a careful look at how they've played this season reveals something quite interesting. The Rangers won an inordinate amount of their games by one goal. One could make the argument that they've been in playoff mode for most of the season. While that certainly can strengthen a team and force them to be more focused, it can also be quite draining both physically and emotionally. Having to stave off elimination three consecutive times would be a daunting task for any team, especially one as driven and extended as this year's Rangers team.

And finally, while 27 teams have come back from 3-1 deficits to win their series, only six of them went on to win the Stanley Cup. More alarming is the fact that only eight organizations have come from behind more than once, with Vancouver accomplishing the feat three times.  Prior to last season's comeback, the Rangers had never managed it once. It's worth noting they fell to the Kings in the finals that year. If you're a betting man, you can't like the odds of a successful championship run in such a scenario.

If I'm the Rangers, I treat tomorrow's match like it's game seven. I'd pull out all the stops, crash the net and throw all caution to the wind. They must win by hook or crook. They can't head back to the Garden trailing 3-1, not if they plan on hoisting the Cup in June.

Maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe they go down 3-1, come back and go all the way. They did win the Presidents' trophy, after all. And they're playing a team that has made it past the second round of the playoffs only twice in its entire history and has on four occasions blown 3-1 series leads. But if they plan on winning this series and prevailing in the next two, they're going to have to step it up and want it more. This year's playoff teams, as I pointed out in an earlier piece, are considerably better than last year's teams. Several of those teams have a legitimate chance of going all the way.

The Capitals are one of them.

NHL Playoff Predictions

A word of caution here, my track record at predicting championship teams is suspect at best. A couple years ago, I picked the Giants to win the Super Bowl. They ended up having one of their worst seasons in over a decade.

Still, I figure I can't be any worse than some of the predictions of the so-called experts. And, besides, I have a horse in this derby. For the first time since 1994, the Rangers are a favorite to win the Stanley Cup.

First off, I'm going with the teams that have the best goaltending. Why? Because they usually win. The last five Cup winners all had goaltenders who were among the NHL's best. Jonathan Quick (2014 & 2012), Corey Crawford (2013 & 2010) and Tuukka Rask (2011). Without those goalies in net, it is doubtful any of them would've made it passed the second round.

Second, I'm going with teams that have depth. If you don't have more than one scoring line, your odds of advancing to the finals, much less winning the Cup, are slim to none.

I'll go with the Eastern Conference first, followed by the Western and ending with the Cup finals, then let the chips fall where they may.


Eastern Conference Quarterfinals 

Rangers vs. Penguins. The only way the Blueshirts don't win this series is if they take the Penguins too lightly. Rangers have huge edge in both goal and defense. Prediction: Rangers in five.

Islanders vs. Capitals: The smart money is on the Caps. I'm going with the team with better depth. Even with Ovechkin, Caps don't measure up. Prediction: Isles in seven.

Canadiens vs. Senators: Carey Price is lightyears ahead of Andrew Hammond. Montreal was one of the best kept secrets in the NHL this year. Prediction: Canadiens in five.

Lightning vs. Redwings: Tampa has it all: youth, depth and scoring. Things could get ugly fast in Motown. Prediction: Lightning in four.

Eastern Conference Semifinals

Rangers vs. Islanders: This one will be a barn burner. Speed of Blueshirts vs. size of Isles. Lundqvist will prove the difference: Prediction: Rangers in six.

Canadiens vs. Lightning: Last year, the Habs swept Tampa. Not this time. This one will go to the wire. Prediction: Canadiens in seven.

Eastern Conference Finals

Rangers vs. Canadiens: Last year's conference finalists lock skates again. A healthy Price will go toe to toe with Lundqvist. Don't be surprised if the series is decided in overtime. Prediction: Rangers in seven.

______________________________________________________________

Western Conference Quarterfinals

Blues vs. Wild: Early exits were the norm in St. Louis. Not this time. This might be best Blues team we've seen in years. Prediction: Blues in six.

Predators vs. Blackhawks: With or without Patrick Kane, Chicago was the favorite. With him it won't even be close. Prediction: Blackhawks in five.

Ducks vs. Jets: Boy did the Ducks ever catch a break here. No L.A. Kings and a weak wildcard opponent. They'll prevail, but barely. Prediction: Ducks in seven.

Flames vs. Canucks: This might turn out to be the most competitive series in round one. Flames making their first playoff appearance since 2009. It'll go the distance. Prediction: Flames in seven.

Western Conference Semifinals

Ducks vs. Flames: Here's where midnight strikes for weak Anaheim. This won't even be close. Prediction: Flames in five.

Blues vs. Blackhawks: A shame these two teams had to meet in this round. They deserved better. The winner will go to finals. Prediction: Blackhawks in seven.

Western Conference Finals

Blackhawks vs. Flames: It was quite a run for Calgary, but the run ends here. Blackhawks too deep and Crawford too good. Prediction: Blackhawks in five.

_____________________________________________________________

Stanley Cup Finals

Rangers vs. Blackhawks: Two original six teams meeting for the Cup. Hockey the way it was meant to be. Two great goaltenders go at it.  Superior speed of Blueshirts will prove the difference. Prediction: Rangers in seven with Lundqvist winning Conn Smyth.

Well, there you have it. My two cents worth. As per usual, I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Just know that if the Rangers don't go all the way, I plan on being one unhappy camper.

Rangers Face Tough Challenges In Pursuit of Cup

53 wins, 113 points, both franchise bests. The New York Rangers go into the 2015 post season as a clear-cut favorite to win the Stanley Cup. They are healthy and they have won 6 of their last 7 games.  What could go wrong?

Well, at the risk of being called a Debbie Downer, there are three legitimate obstacles standing in the way of the Blueshirts' quest to secure their first championship in 21 years. I'll list them in no particular order.

1. A crowded field. As I pointed out in my last posting, while the Rangers have had a helluva regular season and are most definitely the NHL's favorite son, they are by no means an only child. The Montreal Canadiens, Tampa Bay Lightning and Washington Capitals are all genuine contenders to get to the finals. The Canadiens' Carey Price, injured in last year's conference final, is healthy and a legitimate Vezina Trophy candidate. If the Rangers meet them - a strong likelihood should they advance to the third round - Price could go toe to toe with Henrik Lundqvist. If the series goes seven, the Habs are certainly capable of winning at the Garden. Translation? The Rangers are hardly a lock to make it back to the finals.

2. A woeful power play. If there is an Achilles heel to this team, it is their power play, or rather lack of one. The Rangers' power play finished an anemic 16.7 percent, tied for 21st in the NHL. In their last game against New Jersey, the Devils, borrowing a page out of the Broadstreet Bullies' era - handed the Rangers seven power play opportunities. They converted just one. That simply isn't good enough for a team looking to hoist the Cup. The Capitals, by contrast, boast the number one power play in the league. In what promises to be a low-scoring post season, special teams will play a crucial role. If opposing teams know they can take liberties with the Rangers without paying the price, this could be a very short playoff run. The only saving grace here is that the Canadiens' power play is just as woeful.

3. The Presidents' Trophy curse.  Since the trophy was first awarded in 1986, only eight teams that have won it have gone on to win the Cup. Eleven failed to even make it to the conference finals. More ominous was that Alain Vigneault coached two of those failed trophy winners in Vancouver. One of them a first round exit to the L.A. Kings in 2012; the other a thrilling seven game loss to the Boston Bruins in the 2011 finals. Speaking of the Bruins, they were last year's Presidents' Trophy winner, and they lost in the second round to the Canadiens. In fact, of the last six Cup winners, only one, the Chicago Blackhawks, sported the league's best record. And that was during a lockout-shortened season. Being number one isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

But while the Rangers do have some challenges, it's only fair to say that, all things being equal, I would much rather be in their skates than anybody else's. There's a reason why they won the Presidents' Trophy. They were clearly the best team this season. Despite losing their number one goalie, and arguably the NHL's best net minder, the Rangers not only didn't miss a beat, they went into fifth gear. They are the league's fastest and deepest team and they have the three best defense pairings of any playoff team. Since mid December, they have been in a league of their own. After enduring the likes of John Tortorella for five seasons, this team has a quiet confidence that Tortorella's never had. Alain Vigneault has gotten these players to buy into his system and the results speak for themselves.

So round one begins Thursday against the Pittsburgh Penguins. The Blueshirts should have little trouble getting past them. The Pens have been dreadful down the stretch and are missing half their defense due to injuries. And Marc Andre Fleury will be no match for Henrik Lundqvist in goal. It will be crucial for the Rangers to not get extended deep in this round. Five games should suffice.

After that, the Caps or the hated Islanders await. That series should go at least six games. Buckle your seat belts, kids. We're in for quite a ride.

Rangers Can Learn From Kentucky Loss

Seconds after watching the Rangers take apart the Jersey Devils 6-1, I switched over to see the final seconds of the Kentucky - Wisconsin semifinal. Duke had won a few hours earlier and I was checking to see if the Wildcats would be meeting them in the NCAA finals.

Needless to say I was shocked when I learned that Kentucky had lost 71-64. Not only had they lost, but they went the final 90 seconds without scoring a single point. They had been undefeated up to that point and it was looking very much like their year.  It just goes to show you that that old Tony D'Amato line "on any given Sunday you're gonna win or you're gonna lose" is true. Except of course this was Saturday. But you get the point. Anybody can win and anybody can lose. Or, more importantly, anybody can beat you if you're not careful.

And that got me thinking about the Blueshirts. For the last three months the hockey world has been touting them as the team to beat; the prohibitive favorites to make it back to the Cup finals and win it all. And who could blame them. On December 6th, their record stood at 11-10-4 and they looked lost. Since then, they have gone 39-11-3 and are currently number one in the Eastern conference. They are only four points away from capturing their first President's trophy since the 1993-94 season - the last time they won the Cup.

The comparisons to Kentucky are unmistakable and unavoidable. Best record? Invincible? Inevitable? I'm sure at the University of Kentucky, they are still in a state of shock. How could the vaunted Wildcats have lost? Actually, if you take a step back and look at their season, they were lucky to advance as far as they did. Several times throughout the tournament they almost lost. In the game before, they survived a last second three point attempt to hold off Notre Dame.

Throughout this season the Rangers have managed to win a lot of close games by margins of 1-0, 2-1 and 3-2. All exciting games to be sure and all games that could easily have gone the other way. One of those wins came against a Buffalo Sabres team that is currently battling for the worst record in the NHL. Of the 50 wins they have amassed this season, only 18 have been decided by more than 2 goals. An argument could certainly be made that the Rangers have been as lucky as they've been good.

Now I'm not poo-pooing luck. Most head coaches will tell you they'd rather be lucky than good. A lot of good teams end up losing. But the problem with being lucky is that sooner or later your luck runs out. The Rangers may be an elite team this year but they've got company. Of the eight teams that will qualify for the playoffs in the Eastern conference, six are good enough to make it to finals. In the Western conference five teams can make that claim; six if the Kings manage to get in as a wild card. That's a pretty crowded field if you ask me.

Bottom line, yes the Rangers are good enough to win the Cup. Then again we all thought Kentucky was good enough to win the NCAA tournament before they got beaten in the final four. As a result, tomorrow Duke will be playing Wisconsin for the championship. If I were Alain Vigneault, I'd get a copy of that final four game and make sure his players watch it before they start their playoff run.

Are the Rangers For Real?

They're the hottest team in the NHL. They've won 12 of 13 for the first time since the 1972-73 campaign. But the operative question around New York is this. Are the Rangers for real? Can the team that shocked everybody last season, including their head coach, by going to the Stanley Cup Finals, get back the championship round?

Conventional wisdom says no. Teams that lose in the final round seldom get back there the next season. But, over the last month, the Blue shirts have made a compelling case for being the exception to the rule. They haven't just won, they've beaten a lot of good teams. On this current west-coast road trip, they beat the Anaheim Ducks and the defending Cup champion L.A. Kings on back to back nights.

But while die-hard Rangers fans have reason to believe, I wouldn't reserve my final-round playoff tickets just yet. Why? Because a careful look at the roster reveals a potential roadblock to a long and sustained playoff run.

Last year, if you'll recall, head coach Alain Vigneault was able to rotate four solid lines. That gave him an advantage over opposing coaches who may have had more upfront talent, but couldn't keep up with the Rangers' depth. Eventually they wore down both the Penguins and Canadiens. It wasn't until the finals that they met their match in the Kings.

This year, most of the scoring has come from the top two lines with a rejuvenated Rick Nash carrying most of the load. Derick Brassard, last year's third line pivot, is centering the number two line. Brad Richards, last year's number two center, had his contract bought out and is now playing in Chicago. This year's number three center, Dominic Moore, was last year's number four center. Gone from last year are Benoit Pouliot and Brian Boyle who were vital cogs during last year's run. It is doubtful the team would've advanced as far as it did without both players. Role players like Lee Stempniak and J.T. Miller have some big skates to fill. If they're up to the challenge, the Rangers will go far - maybe even all the way. If they're not, an early exit is in the offing.

With that in mind, GM Glen Sather has a big decision ahead of him. Does he make a deal at the trading deadline and risk upsetting the team chemistry? If so, for whom? He has roughly $3 million in cap room to play with, more than enough to rent a scoring forward for three months. If the Devils decide to dump Jaromir Jagr, I'd grab him. Jagr still has speed and is a proven clutch player. He could play on either the number 2 or number 3 lines as well as the power play. He's also a solid citizen in the locker room, something Vigneault demands of his players.

And the best thing about it is that the cost of obtaining Jagr wouldn't be that much: a low-round draft pick probably and Sather has no commitment to Jagr beyond this season. Indeed, with both Marty St. Louis and Jagr's contracts expiring at the end of the year, Sather could potentially have $9 million in cap money to go shopping for some new blood if the team doesn't win the Cup. That should allow him to lock up both Mats Zuccarello and Carl Hagelin to long-term contracts. With a developing Chris Kreider and phenom Anthony Duclair on the horizon, the Rangers could have one of the youngest and fastest teams in the league for years to come.

Bottom line: the Rangers are a solid playoff team. How far they go this postseason will depend on how big their role players play and whether their GM is willing to role the dice the way he did last year when he traded Ryan Callahan for St. Louis. That move helped propel them to the finals.

Only time will tell if lightning can strike twice.

A Mugging in Dallas

I won't mince words. I hate the Cowboys. I've hated them for years, decades in fact. I hate how smug their fans are and I especially resent that they call themselves America's team. Even the Yankees - who it should be noted have considerably more championships - don't have the nerve to refer to themselves as America's team.

That being said, what happened last night was atrocious and an embarrassment. The Detroit Lions got mugged, period. Please spare me all the "it wasn't a clear-cut penalty" and "the Lions still had time to recover and win the game" drivel. Try telling that to the city of Detroit. They have every right to feel like they got screwed. Because they did.

I don't know which I find more offensive, the incompetence of the officiating crew or the litany of irrelevant explanations from apologists who are more concerned with protecting the integrity of the NFL than calling a spade a spade. One such example of this was from Frank Schwab of Yahoo Sports who managed to come up with a whopping five reasons for why the Lions lost, none of which, surprise, had to do with the call. In the interest of common sense, allow me to dispense with all five.

1. The Lions should have gone for it on 4th down. Really, no REALLY! That's your strategy? Eight minutes to go, up by three, at midfield. You want to risk giving the ball back to the opponent with a short field? I'm glad you're not a coach; you'd be fired. Head coach Jim Caldwell made the right call - the ONLY call he could've made. He decided to punt the ball and force Dallas to go the length of the football field. Given that the Cowboys had only scored 17 points up until that call, he had every reason to believe his defense was capable of making a stop. Had he gone for it, he would've been saying he had no faith in his defense. Worse, if he went for it and didn't make it, his head would rightly be on the chomping block. You don't take that kind of gamble that late in a playoff game.

2. The kicker shanked the punt. What can I say, shit happens. Tell me you knew he was going to do that and I'll buy you a house. 99 times out of a hundred, the punt goes off without a hitch. At the very least, the Cowboys would've gotten the ball at the 20 yard line; at most, the ball would've been downed near the goal line. You count on players to make plays. When they don't, it can prove costly. Shank or no shank, the call reversal is still unacceptable.

3. No one play wins or loses a game. This one's a beaut. First of all that statement depends on when the play occurs. For instance, three years ago the Giants were playing the Packers in the playoffs. Aaron Rogers threw a pass to a receiver who caught the ball and then was stripped of it as he was being tackled. Everyone who saw the play knew it was a fumble, but the call on the field was down by contact. The call even withstood a challenge by Giants' head coach Tom Coughlin. On the very next play Rogers threw a touchdown pass. It was still very early in the game and the Giants had plenty of time to recover from the blown call, which they did. They ended up routing the Packers. Had that call happened later in the game, there's no telling what might've happened. The point is you can't simply make a blanket statement like the above without knowing all the details. If the call is upheld, the Lions have the ball first and 10 at the Cowboy 26 yard line with just over eight minutes to go. They could've scored another touchdown, making it a two-score game for the Cowboys; they could've potentially run out the clock; or, at the very least, taken a good chunk of time off it before giving up the football deep in Cowboys' territory. They were denied that opportunity. End of story.

4. If the Lions had simply beaten the Packers the week before, they would've had a bye and hosted a home game next week. So, I guess it's okay then if the Packers had been the ones robbed. I just don't understand this reasoning. What difference does it make whether the Lions were home or on the road or whether the Packers would've been the team on the road? None of this is relevant. A bad call is a bad call, no matter where you are or which teams are involved.

5. It wasn't a clear-cut penalty. I don't know which universe you're in but that was about as clear a penalty as you're likely to see in the NFL. In fact, Hitchens, the Cowboys' linebacker who committed the foul, actually was holding Lions' tight end Pettigrew's jersey before the actual pass interference was committed. So he could've been called for either foul or maybe even both. It happens all the time. In fact, holding penalties are so common place in the league, a defender can be called for one for just breathing on the receiver. Furthermore, when Cowboys' receiver Dez Bryant ran onto the field with his helmet off, a penalty should've been called just for that. So that's three pretty cut and dried penalties. Don't take my word for it; take the word of Dean Blandino, the NFL head of officiating, who said all three fouls were committed and should've been called.

So there you have it. A horrific call which badly tainted what was up to that point a pretty good game. One team goes home empty handed; the other lives to play another game. And, once more, the NFL is embroiled in an embarrassing controversy that was avoidable. They say the worst errors are the unforced ones. This was one helluva unforced error.


Go Packers!