Predictions...

Well, I haven't written anything since March on here, and it's 7:16 on the morning of the NHL's first games. In less than 5 hours, the puck will drop in Helsinki between two great teams - Derek Boogaard's former team (the Minnesota Wild) and Bobby Sanguenetti's current team (the Carolina Hurricanes, and yes, he made the NHL team).

Predictions - the best and worst part of October. Everyone is normally wrong, but they're fun to debate anyway. So, here we go...

Eastern Conference
1. Washington Capitals
2. New Jersey Devils
3. Toronto Maple Leafs
4. Pittsburgh Penguins
5. Buffalo Sabres
6. NY Rangers
7. Tampa Bay Lightning
8. Philadelphia Flyers
9. Atlanta Thrashers
10. Boston Bruins
11. NY Islanders
12. Carolina Hurricanes
13. Florida Panthers
14. Ottawa Senators
15. Montreal Canadiens

Notes: The Rangers missed the playoffs by 1 point yet improved a lot over the offseason. They got a better backup goalie than they had (Martin Biron is in fact better than any combination of Chad Johnson and Matt Zaba and Steve Valiquette) and Alex Frolov is going to add much more offense than Aaron Voros.

Tampa Bay has a great forward line up including Lecavilier, Stamkos, St. Louis, Ryan Malone, and Steve Downie. With Victor Hedman and Mattias Ohlund on the blue line and competent goaltending in Dan Ellis and Mike Smith, they should take make the playoffs, edging out a much improved Chicago Blackha err, Atlanta Thrashers team.

In the Northeast, I can't see an aging Ottawa team with questionable goaltending making the playoffs again. Yes, Sergei Gonchar is good, but I think he'll fall apart without Crosby and Malkin on the same PP unit. And Toronto might be unstoppable. The best defense in the NHL (Beauchemin, Kaberle, Komisarek, Lebda, Phaneuf, Schenn), solid goaltending (Giguere, Gustavsson), and a much improved offense featuring Colby Armstrong, Kris Versteeg, and a healthy Phil Kessel. The Leafs... will... be... very... good.

And I don't think Florida will - or should - ever make the playoffs again. Send that stupid team to Canada already!

Western Conference
1. Vancouver Canucks
2. San Jose Sharks
3. Detroit Red Wings
4. Chicago Blackhawks
5. Phoenix Coyotes
6. Los Angeles Kings
7. Colorado Avalance
8. St. Louis Blues
9. Nashville Predators
10. Edmonton Oilers
11. Calgary Flames
12. Columbus Blue Jackets
13. Anaheim Ducks
14. Minnesota Wild
15. Dallas Stars

Notes: Vancouver should win the division because they have the best goaltending of the top contenders. I mean, I guess Chicago would (with Marty Turco) if I were writing predictions for 2003-04. With Raffi Torres, Manny Malhotra, and Dan Hamhuis, the Canucks improved under-the-radar, but all 3 are great additions.

I think the East is a lot stronger this year. The top 5 teams in the West are good, but all have their flaws. Is Detroit getting too old (and Mike Modano is not an injection of youth)? Does San Jose, LA, or Chicago have the goaltending?

Does LA have the offense? They'll need better years from Dustin Brown and Ryan Smyth and a breakout year from Wayne Simmonds. Alex Ponikarovsky replaces Frolov, but can he?

Edmonton, while not a playoff team yet, is building something with Taylor Hall, Jordan Eberle, and Magnus Paajarvi. Tom Renney will be great there.

Anaheim must be content being middle-of-the-road. All they did was sign 3 marginally good defenseman (Paul Mara, who I love; Toni Lydman; and Andy Sutton, whose best years are far behind him). Dallas, the same (whose less bad, Kari Lehtonen or Andrew Raycroft?).

Playoffs
Washinton vs. Pittsburgh in the East
Canucks vs. Sharks in the West

Washington vs. Vancouver in the Finals
Washington winning

I know it's cheesy to pick your Conference Winners to play each other in the Finals, but that's why I picked them both #1 I guess. To be honest, I can completely see Vancouver stumbling in the playoffs, but they do have a very good team, and when Alex Burrows is back from injury in early-November, they'll be even better.

Enjoy the season, ladies & gentleman. Here's hoping the Islanders and Rangers both improve, both over last season and from the beginning of this one to the end.

Hart Trophy: Ilya Kovalchuk, NJ
Conn Smythe: Alex Ovechkin, WAS
Norris Trophy: Drew Doughty, LA
Vezina Trophy: Ryan Miller, Roberto Luongo, or Henrik Lundqvist (oh, hell, Martin Brodeur is probably going to be given it anyway)

Scouts?...

Being an NHL scout has to be one of the easier jobs in the world. I admit, a minor league hockey scout probably has a tough job - traveling to obscure cities in Oklahoma, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Texas; low pay; lots of hours; writing reports on people that no one knows.

But a pro scout? Isn't that why there are TVs? That's why the NHL has highlights of every game on its website. We are all basically pro scouts. We watch TV, we see replays, we decide if a player is good or bad.

So what exactly is it that the scouts for the Calgary Flames do?

I can understand the executives in Calgary wanting to trade Dion Phaneuf. He was a disease in the locker room, and even with him in the lineup they had only 1 win in the past 9 games. It was time for a change for him, so they traded him for a bunch of players. Matt Stajan is pretty good, Nik Hagman is skilled, Jamal Mayers is tough, and Ian White is a decently high-scoring D-man (though he's no Phaneuf).

Still, they lost out big time on that trade. A top-6 forward, to bottom-6 forwards, and a 2nd- or 3rd-pair defenseman does not make up for losing a huge talent like Phaneuf (like him or not, and I don't, he's good) and a great penalty killer in Freddy Sjostrom.

So how does Calgary follow up? By trading for Ales Kotalik and Chris Higgins. Really? Olli Jokinen and Chris Higgins are both going to be unrestricted free agents after this season, so it wasn't a salary dump (Higgins' + Kotalik's salary = Jokinen's). Wouldn't you rather have Jokinen then Higgins? I would, because I watch the games, though I don't get paid.

And how could they have possibly wanted Kotalik? Don't get me wrong, I liked Kotalik as a Ranger and think he could've been good here, but he's sat out 8 of 9 games. The one game he played? Against Carolina where the Rangers lost 5-1 and he was a rusty screwdriver out there.

How could a paid individual go, "That guy who hasn't played for 7 games, played horrible in his 1 game, then got benched again. We want him. What, he has a no-trade clause to Calgary? That's fine. We want to pay him for the next 2 years also." This has buy-out written all over it.

(I can see a team wanting Higgins. He's a tough guy who has scored in the past but was awful in NY. Maybe they see him as a reclamation project who they can dump in the offseason if it fails.)

The only way it makes sense for Calgary is if it's the first of a few moves (well, second of a few moves, I guess) to land a big fish.

It reminds me of when the Canadiens took Scott Gomez off of our hands, as I'm sure it reminds you as well. Remember how they then couldn't afford to make a run at Marian Gaborik?

Thank you, Canadian teams.

Hey, is Vancouver looking to trade the Sedin twins for Wade Redden and Michal Rozsival?

Good Stuff Tonight...

I try not to be one of "those fans" - you know, the type who sulks and glooms and says the team is horrible after a loss, but they're the first one to chant "We Want the Cup" after a convincing win.

However, tonight was a good game. The difference between Edmonton and Vancouver, between 1,160 kilometers or 721 miles (thank you, Google Maps), was the offense. It was firing tonight. They took advantage of power plays. (The 0% on the power play was misleading in Vancouver, by the way. Chris Higgins scored a second after one expired.) They swarmed the net. They passed well. But more importantly, they took shots. Take a shot, you never know what will happen.

They had 23 shots in Vancouver - 14 in the second period and then 9 combined in periods 1 and 3. Tonight, they had 39. Phil Esposito always says - and I'm sure Alex Ovechkin will concur - you can't score if you don't shoot. Dan Girardi had a great pass/shot today that Sean Avery deflected. It didn't go in, but it was close. Get the puck to the net. If they don't get the puck to the net, Marian Gaborik doesn't one-hand that last goal home.

The effort was definitely there tonight...

Aaron Voros - Horrible 1st period, but he did play better in the 2nd and 3rd... saving his job for another day. Granted, he probably only had another 3 minutes all game, but they were better than his first minute, where he took 2 penalties. When he swung his stick at an Oilers' knees (can't remember which Oiler) and took a two-minute minor, did you see how *shocked* he was? How could he be surprised! It looked like he was cutting down a tree!

(By the way, I've never used the two asterisks on a word before in my life.)

Brian Boyle - Good ol' T-Bone. How many open nets can a man miss in one period? The answer, it seems, is two... twice. But he had a few good shots, a couple of good hits, and played like a 4th line player should: Good enough for the coach not to be nervous to put you out on the ice.

Chris Higgins - I won't profess him a great pickup yet, although we're all happy he is here instead of Scott Gomez. However, isn't it amazing how much better he is playing since he scored one goal? He has another goal already and played inspired, tough hockey tonight. If only he would do a move on a breakaway. Every time he gets one, he just shoots, and so far, it hasn't worked.

Ryan Callahan - "Gritty." Good word to describe his play tonight, as far as most nights.

Brandon Dubinsky - Was he even out there tonight? I noticed his play as much as I noticed Healthy Scratch Donald Brashear.

Wade Redden & Michal Rozsival - Weak games as well. Redden reminds me of myself, when I was 9. Any time I got the puck, I would get scared and pass it to the nearest teammate. That's what he does. Don't believe the hype in his "great pass to spring Higgins on a breakaway." It was lucky, he was just clearing it. And Rozsival? For a defender, he sure doesn't defend. I wouldn't want him on my team during an autumnal game of capture the flag, let alone near my crease in an NHL game.

Steve Valiquette - The team played good in front of him - especially Girardi and Marc Staal. It was huge for him to win this game, especially after the Sharks game where he got shellacked. Now, like Boyle, John Tortorella should feel safe putting him into a game.

Now, let's not be overly optimistic. Edmonton is a mediocre team. They were .500 going into tonight, and they were on a slide. Sheldon Souray is hurt, significantly impacting their power play. Mike Comrie was sick. A lot of other players got hit with the flu bug also the past 10 days.

So, what did the Rangers really do? They beat up on a weak team. And sometimes, that's just what you need to get back on track. Now, let's see if they can keep up the pace against the 9-4-1 Flames, who suddenly are an offensive team.

(By the way, I love these 9:30 games. I leave work at 8:20, clean up, eat, and I'm ready for pre-game and the opening faceoff.)

Western Canada Road Trip...

Ah, the dreaded Western Canadian Road Trip. Remember last time, in January of 2008 when they got 1 points in 3 games?

They ran into a red-hot Calgary team featuring Kristian Huselius, who had 4 points in the 4-3 game, including a goal from behind the goal-line that somehow sneaked past Henrik Lundqvist.

Steve Valiquette had no offense in a 3-0 loss to Vancouver.

And if not for Chris Drury scoring with 7 seconds left to force overtime, they would've left with 0 points instead of 1 (Edmonton was monstrous in the shootout in '07-'08, partially because then-rookie Sam Gagner was unstoppable in the tiebreaker).

Last night against Vancouver felt like that trip all over again. The Rangers applied little pressure, even in the 2nd period when the shot-counter went in their favor. Sure, they fired 14 shots in that frame, but how many were legitimate scoring chances? Two? Maybe just one?

They ought to have pounced on Vancouver, especially in the 3rd. They had, what, 4 power plays in a row, including a double-minor to end the 2nd period? And they couldn't do anything with it. Vancouver was shorthanded for 8 minutes, had good players in the penalty box, had Henrik Sedin and Willie Mitchell playing at 40% because of injuries, and still, no good opportunities. Other than Chris Higgins, who worked hard for Goal #1, there were a handful of Rangers who actually showed up. Matt Gilroy was one of them; he looked fantastic. Mike Del Zotto wasn't a standout but played good. Ryan Callahan played hard, again, and couldn't score, again. And Brandon Dubinsky... is on the trading block?

You would have thought that the big brawl would have fired them up, but it really just jazzed up the Canucks as it seemed the Rangers were content bringing the game to overtime and settling for a point - or a shootout.

* * *

I love that Dane Byers is in the lineup. As opposed to Evgeny Grachev or Pierre-Alexandre Parenteau, Byers is never going to light it up in the NHL, so he doesn't need to "dominate the minors before becoming an NHLer," and the old "it's better to play 20 minutes a night in the AHL than 7 minutes in the NHL" adage doesn't apply to him.

I would rather have Byers in the lineup over Donald Brashear any night. Maybe Brashear of 2003 or 2006, but not the 2009 version, where he is slow, shows the same hockey sense as Colton Orr, and doesn't fight - and when he does, he loses. Byers showed fire last night. Sure, he didn't win the fight, but he was out there battling, starting stuff, and showing that he belongs in the NHL. Even John Tortorella gave him a "good game" en route to the locker room - although Tortorella's good game pat fell in an awkward spot.

Been Busy...

I apologize for not writing more about our beloved Rangers, but between working very long days, going to a wedding yesterday, being hungover today, and running back and forth between the bank and the GMC dealership, I haven't had any free time to watch hockey, much less write about it.

Okay, that's being dramatic. I did miss all of the game against Minnesota, but I caught the first 2 periods of the Bruins game before I had to leave for work Sunday afternoon.

I'll be back sometime later tonight, probably around 1 in the morning, after I watch the Canucks/Rangers game on TiVo.

In the meantime, a very happy birthday to Islanders' Writer Bryan, who turns Colton Orr's number today.

It's Prediction Thursday!...

For the third time today, we will have a prediction themed post on this website. I guess that's what happens when both of your teams have officially emptied their respective lockers and have held exit interviews.

Based on my poor showing in my 2008-09 predictions, you should not put much stock into what I say. Also take into effect that last year, I predicted Montreal, the Rangers, Colorado, and San Jose to win the 2nd round and go into the Conference Finals. The correct winners were Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Dallas. Much like David Wright, I was 0-for-4.

Keep in mind that Game 1 of Vancouver/Chicago is in the books

Boston over Carolina in 5
Pittsburgh over Washington in 6
Detroit over Anaheim in 6
Vancouver over Chicago in 6

I hope I'm not selling Anaheim short again. I heard Gary Bettman's erection has not gone down since the Hurricanes beat the Devils to force a Penguins/Capitals series. I also hope that the officials go easy in said series. You know they're going to referee it so that it goes to 7 games, or atleast try to. And Pittsburgh will win, of course, because Gary Bettman said so.

OK Then

When Zach pontificated this afternoon about what the Rangers should do to accomodate Mats Sundin, I don't think any of us expected to have the point become moot within ten hours. And yet, that's exactly what happened. The headlines are stating that Sundin "snubbed" New York, sort of in the same vein that every free agent "snubs" the Yankees by going to a different team. Did he snub the Rangers? Not as much as he snubbed the NHL in general; however, the NHL gets what it deserves for letting Teemu Selanne and Scott Niedermayer pull this same stunt last year.

When I first heard Sundin was headed to Vancouver, I was shocked. It seemed like the Rangers were a much better fit for Sundin, and all indications were that he'd be willing to wait for the Rangers to clear out cap room. But it's all for naught, and it'll be interesting to see how the Rangers respond. Do they take this subtle message from Glen Sather, the message saying he thinks they're fine the way they are, as a positive sign? Or do they let this become a distraction to the point that Sather is stuck overpaying for a Sundin-type impact player who happens to have an expiring contract? Only time can tell the answer to these questions.

The big thing is, in my eyes, Sundin showed that he isn't overly concerned with winning the Stanley Cup. Should he be? I mean, he didn't grow up in Canada salivating over the chance to hoist the Cup one day. Instead, he grew up in Sweden, with the NHL a pipe dream until Europeans like Jari Kurri paved the way, showing that the European game translates well to North America and, more importantly, that the NHL is the top place in the world to play. So forgive Sundin if he isn't exactly committed to winning now. This is something we all learned when he refused to waive his no-trade clause while with the sinking ship that was Toronto last year. Obviously, Sundin would have a much better chance reaching the Cup Final with the Rangers than with Vancouver. The West is loaded with great teams; San Jose, Detroit, and Anaheim are just three of the legit Cup contenders out West. Not that the Rangers are a much better team than the Canucks (they're probably not better at all), but the Rangers would only have to go through Pittsburgh and Boston - and the jury is still out on how long the Bruins can keep up their current pace.

In the end, Vancouver is the perfect place for Sundin. He gets to continue to be a high-profile idol in Canada, something that's apparently very important to him. He gets to play in a place where winning a Stanley Cup isn't the be-all and end-all; remember, a second-round finish is progress in Vancouver, while with the Rangers it'd be considered a failure. And hey, if it doesn't work out with the Canucks, he can resume jerking teams around next fall when he pulls his Brett Favre routine yet again.

Having said all of that, the Rangers' outcome this season will always be tied back to the decision Mats Sundin made to spurn the Rangers in favor of Vancouver. If the Rangers manage to stay atop the Atlantic and make a deep playoff run, it'll be because the team bonded in the wake of Sundin's decision and realized their potential. And if they fall apart, it'll be because Sather couldn't get the job done. It's rare that a team's turning point occurs before Christmas, but it appears as though that's exactly what's happened to this Rangers team. Their response will be very, very telling.

Will He, Won't He, Will They, Won't They...

In a month - or hell, even two days from now - this all could be seen as stupid speculation, but it's worth bringing up.

Questions:

1) Is it worth trading a player valuable to the Rangers for the next 5 seasons today to acquire Mats Sundin for (at most) a year and a half?

2) Is it worth trading a few interchangeable parts to get Sundin for this year and maybe next year?

 

Answers:

1) Absolutely not.

2) Absolutely.

Let's start with the second question. Right now, Petr Prucha and Dan Fritsche are in limbo. They aren't playing, when they do it's 10 minutes or less a night, and they don't get valuable shifts. Getting rid of them (although I do have a man-love with Prucha) is a simple solution and we would hope they find success elsewhere.

Waiving Dmitri Kalinin also wouldn't hurt the team. Corey Potter could step in, and honestly, I don't think there's any way he could be worse than Kalinin has been unless Potter breaks his leg (and then he would still only be slightly worse than a healthy Kalinin).

But say Sundin wants more than that could free up. Should Scott Gomez or Chris Drury be traded? (Let's be honest here, there will be no takers for Wade Redden or Michal Rozsival - even after Rozy's incredible penalty shot goal.) Absolutely not.

The Rangers of the past would mortgage their future for a jaded shot at a Stanley Cup. It worked in 1994 when Tony Amonte, Todd Marchant, and Doug Weight were traded away. It failed every single year since. Remember when Marc Savard was traded for Jan Freakin' Hlavac?

Gomez and Drury make up the core of this team, like it or not. They might not always produce incredible numbers on this low-scoring team, but they are the leaders. Gomez is the playmaker and one of the only players who can move the puck up ice and not give it away. Chris Drury is there for the playoffs. Okay, maybe last year wasn't a great example, but still.

Plus, when you take one of them away, this team is not a real Cup contender if they even are with them on it. Why would Sundin be brought in to REPLACE one of them (unless it's to remove them from the salary cap - highly unlikely though). He is there to COMPLIMENT them, to relieve pressure on their lines so they can score more easily. 

Getting rid of bit players makes sense, especially ones who aren't playing now (or Nigel Dawes) but Sundin is not a replacement for a major player.

But hey, he might choose Vancouver, or Toronto, or Montreal, and this post could get deleted.

A Case for Mats Sundin...

In years prior, the Rangers would sign big-name contracts to big-name deals and would get nothing in return. Eric Lindros, injured and slow, would play like Brett Lindros. Pavel Bure played like Pavel Bure for 51 games before his knees wouldn't let him skate. Alex Kovalev never played up to his potential on his return-trips to Broadway, Bruce Driver didn't do much as a Ranger, Bobby Holik got paid 1st-line money even though he was a checking-line player, and when he played the checking line role, he got dumped on. 

The list goes on and on of people who gladly accepted money from the Rangers and didn't produce. Kevin Stevens, Val Kamensky, Matt Schneider, etc., etc., etc.

Mats Sundin is a different breed. If he wanted the money, he would be in Vancouver and taking 20 million of their dollars until next season is over.

Yet, he wants the prize. He wants a Stanley Cup.

Many people - me included, and hopefully him as well - think the Rangers are a few parts short of contending. They have a Top 3 goalie and some good quick forwards. Their defense is questionable-at-best, but if they employ Tom Renney's system, they can mask their flaws and Henrik Lundqvist can do the rest, much like they did at the beginning of this season and most of last.

Now, is Sundin an aging superstar? Obviously, but isn't everyone? His stats have never wavered. The last time he didn't have 72 points or more in a season? 1994-95 when the strike shortened the season, and he had 47 points in 47 games.

Since the lockout, he has averaged over a point per game, which would make him easily the most proficient Ranger on a roster where someone gets hot for 5 games then cold for three weeks. See: Chris Drury, and his 5G, 1A week in November, and his 4 points since then. 

He is a leader in the Brendan Shanahan-mold, except he isn't so injured that he becomes useless like Shanahan was from January to May of 2008. He is big, he takes up room around the net, and two players flock to him, leaving another player open.

He is the equivalent of Jaromir Jagr in 2005-06, before hip and shoulder injuries bested him.

I'm not going to pontificate on who the Rangers should trade or waive to make more cap room (although if I were Dmitri Kalinin, I would certainly keep a suitcase on hand). But the point remains, Sundin for one year makes a whole lot of sense for the Rangers.

Brian Burke: Nice Guy?...

A few days ago, my counterpart, Islanders blogger Bryan, wrote about how he respects Brian Burke.

Well, yesterday, Burke went on NHL Live (XM 204/Sirius 208/NHL Network) and made some incredible comments about Sean Avery referring to the girl who slept with Luke Wilson in Old School as "sloppy seconds." Incredible in the sense that I'm amazed he actually believes what he said.

First off, he found Avery's comments "personally offensive." I was not aware that he was such good friends with Elisha Cuthbert to take personal offense at Avery saying that she has dated other hockey players besides #16.

He then, for some reason, threw Fedor Fedorov and Terrell Owens under the bus. Interesting.

He also doesn't "think it should be acceptable" that Avery should make comments like he did.

For the record, Avery's comments to a bunch of Canadian reporters have generated more press for the game in America than Burke going from Anaheim to Toronto. Most common Americans don't even know who Brian Burke is.

I'm not defending Avery in what he said, just his right to say it. He was being smug, he was being stupid, he did it for attention, and he did it to stir up the other team. He probably didn't think it through and shouldn't have even said it in front of the press. He should've just said something to Dion Phaneuf after a whistle and tried to draw a retaliation penalty.

However, it baffles me why this would personally offend Burke. After all, this is the same man who, as GM of the Vancouver Canucks, dismissed the severity of Steve Moore's broken neck when his goon Todd Bertuzzi (whom he later signed in Anaheim) jumped him from behind and punched his paralyzed and bloody body on the ice. He said Bertuzzi's punishment was too severe.

Bertuzzi wound up getting 13 games for ending Moore's career. Avery has already been suspended 2 games and will likely receive more (I'm guessing 5 total) for saying a non-NHL entity has had more than one boyfriend.

Right now, Avery's comments are apparently on par with Mike Mottau headhunting Frans Nielsen and injuring him for 3-4 months, as they both have received suspensions of two games.

This makes me so angry that I cannot properly express it. It's reasons like this that the NHL is considered a joke, and if Gary Bettman was serious about the league gaining popularity, he would suspend those who injury on purpose and not those who put the league's name on ESPN's SportsCenter.

It's crap like this that makes me want to give up on the NHL.

What A Ridiculous Night Of Hockey

It's going to be a busy night in the NHL On The Fly studios...

 - In Boston, the first period ended 4-3 Bruins. After two, it was 6-4 Boston. It's currently 7-4 with 12 minutes left.

 - At the Garden, the Canucks scored two first-period goals. They quickly scored two more to make it a 4-0 game. The Rangers got one back. Vancouver had a near-goal which got reviewed and was called a no-goal, then scored like five seconds later. Lundqvist pulled himself from the game. The Rangers got another one, making it 5-2 at the intermission.

So that's two games. Roughly five and a half periods played. Eighteen goals.

I'm a total dork for statistics, so I follow this stuff a lot. Goals per game are up this year. A lot of people love to dump on the current state of the game, stating that goals are only up because power plays are up. That's probably true. But who cares?

Heading into tonight, teams scored an average of 2.92 goals per game, which means the average game features 5.84 goals. That's up from last year's numbers, according to Drop Your Gloves. Goals per game were over six at one point, but have taken a bit of a dip lately. It's all good. Scoring isn't as high as it was just after the lockout, but it's nice to see scores like 5-4 in at least a couple of games most nights. The truth is, hockey needs goals to keep the non-diehards interested.

The other big thing this year is for people to criticize the shootout. Why? You're telling me you liked tie games? I know a lot of traditionalists don't like giving out an extra point for a "skills competition", and that's fine. But as long as they're going to give out points just for getting to overtime and allow the first team to score on a four-on-four to take a point - because, you know, teams play so much hockey at four-on-four - why not have the shootout? It's exciting, it keeps viewers glued to their TVs, and it rewards teams with dynamic offensive players and clutch goalies. How is this a bad thing?

Long story short, there's too much good in the game to nitpick over stupid things. According to Hockey-Reference, 35 players that have played ten or more games are averaging a point a game right now. That's pretty good. Of those 35, eight are on pace for 100-point seasons. Last year, there were two 100-point players, Alexander Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin. This year, guys like Ryan Getzlaf and Patrick Kane are poised to join their ranks. It's a great time to be a hockey fan, and more offense can only help our game.

Channel 11 News...

Apologies to Bryan for posting right after him, but I have something quick I need to saw.

I know that nobody really watches network news for sports scores in this age of the Internet, 4 ESPN channels, and a bunch of other local sports channels that have scrolling scores constantly on the bottom.

That said, someone in my house was watching Channel 11's nightly news, and they said, "Coming up: We know who the NL MVP is, more on the Giants steamrolling the Ravens, and the Rangers and Islanders both in action!"

We come back from break. They lead with a 90 second story on the National League MVP (that's baseball, by the way) and why it was wrong and who really should've won it. Then, they do a 90 second story on the Giants game from yesterday that was analyzed to death all of last night and probably most of today.

Then, we get a sort 10 second clip of Henrik Lundqvist making the final save in tonight's shootout win over Ottawa, and he says, "And the Islanders hosted Vancouver and won in a shootout, also."

End of newscast.

So to recap... a long story on two teams who aren't from New York who play a boring sport that ended 2 weeks ago. Then a story on a game from last night (which I'm fine with, football is now America's sport and it was a big game for a great team). Then, a clip of a save, a celebratory stick-in-the-arm-and-gloved-fist-pump, and a quick sentence on another game that also went on today.

I know hockey isn't big here. I'm not oblivious. But how is the sport supposed to grow when a St. Louis Cardinal gets 45 times more airtime than Long Island's only sports team and 9 times more play than the 2nd best team in the NHL who also happen to play in NY?

Just makes me mad. Quick! Someone contact Neil Best!

* * *

And a quick aside to what Bryan said about me liking defensive hockey: I think great defensive hockey is incredibly enjoyable. Great saves, shot blocking, aggressive backchecking, up and down, back and forth hockey with breakouts and breakaways. However, neutral-zone trap hockey is horrific.

Great Win Tonight

So tonight was interesting. Two New York teams playing at home against Canadian opponents, two 2-1 shootout wins for the locals. Zach will be by to tell you more about the Rangers game. As for the Islanders...

 - Zach talked me into buying back into online gambling. So I did. I considered betting the under for this game, which was five goals. I ultimately decided against it and bet the under in tonight's Bills-Browns game, which was said to be played in snowy conditions. The under in that game is 41. It's already 13-7 Cleveland with not a drop of snow on the ground. Uh-oh.

 - Caught the pre-game show tonight... it wasn't bad. Filler-laden, sure, but enjoyable. Two segments stood out to me. The first, obviously, was the Stan Fischler-C.J. Papa segment in which the two spent maybe five seconds talking about the Islanders. They'd go on to repeat this during the intermissions. The other was a segment called "Billy's Breakdown" where Billy Jaffe broke down some film for the viewing audience. What I liked was that he didn't pick the scoring plays. Instead, he picked the plays people don't really notice, but can be disastrous if done incorrectly. Tonight's theme was breakouts from the defensive zone, which is harder than it seems. Jaffe also scores points with me for doing NHL Live during the afternoon and still doing the game at night. That's hardcore.

 - The Isles came out jittery, but started to get it together by the end of the first. The second and third periods showed how good defensive hockey can be. Like Zach said the other night, defensive battles are great, and hockey has better defensive-minded games than any other sport. Joey MacDonald is the obvious first star of this game, but Andy Sutton played an excellent game as well. It's no coincidence the Islanders have gotten their act together since Sutton's return. Here's a stat you might not be aware of - since Sutton came back on October 30, the Islanders have only played two games (out of nine) in which they haven't either won or held a third-period lead.

 - The stat I just mentioned doesn't just reflect well on Sutton, but on the whole team. Everyone loves to dump on the Islanders - more on this later - but the truth is the Isles have been extremely competitive so far in November. This team is starting to figure out what it is. It's certainly not the best team, but it plays hard. It gets ahead early, often loses its way, but is starting to learn how to come back and play a good third period. Three wins in a row is a big deal for a team most people picked for last in the entire league.

 - As well as the Islanders are playing, I still have to question some of Scott Gordon's decisions. Namely, how on earth Jeff Tambellini gets a regular shift in overtime. You really want to throw out a minus-six player out there in overtime? I don't get that one. Nor do I see the logic in giving Josh Bailey a try in the shootout. Had he scored his first NHL goal already, that'd be one thing. But to take an 18-year-old who's trying to figure out the NHL game, trying to get his firsts out of the way, and throw him in there against a top-three goaltender? That's asking a lot. I guess Gordon is still trying to figure out who his go-to shootout guys are. The only player to participate in both Islanders shootouts this year is Trent Hunter - and he missed both of his attempts.

 - Throughout the game, the announcers mentioned the boasts of the Vancouver media that this would be an easy two points for the Canucks. As the game progressed, the announcers became more and more fed up with these remarks. Finally, Howie Rose sardonically remarked after Joey MacDonald's final save, "The all-knowing Vancouver media has some explaining to do!" Look, homerism is a turn-off for a lot of people. For Islanders fans? I think we kind of need that. It's not as though there are a ton of people proudly boasting Islanders merchandise. I wore an Islanders shirt to Saturday overtime last week, and a Rangers fan asked me, "You wear that (bleep) in public?" So yeah. I'll take a broadcast crew that gets behind my team as opposed to one that calls it right down the middle, at least as far as the Islanders are concerned.

As for the articles in question, here's one I found, entitled "Islanders Look Like Team in Oldtimers League".  But I did find this blog, which did your typical "Hockey's in trouble on Long Island" post earlier today and ended tonight's coverage with this nugget: "Canucks lose after scoring in the first minute of regulation, beaten by a career minor-league goalie named Joey MacDonald. Not very good..."

If you've ever wondered why Islanders fans have such a complex about their team, it's because we have to read crap like this pretty much all the time. It kind of gets old after a while. When the Rangers were awful, people made fun of them for spending a lot of money. Nobody said New York City didn't deserve a hockey franchise. Even if it's hard to dispute the facts about the state of the Islanders, it hurts to hear about it so often. Especially from the uninformed Canadian media, who are never wrong about anything. Just ask them.

One last thing about the Canucks, who have been to the playoffs just as many times as the Islanders since the lockout: They stole the Islanders' promotional slogan from last season.

I was happy the Islanders got their two points tonight. But I think I'm even happier that the Isles got to stick it to the media. Something tells me they're going to be in this sort of position a lot this year. But if the first two weeks of November are any indication, the Islanders won't be nearly as bad as many of us feared. I can think of a lot of teams who wouldn't mind taking 11 out of 18 points in November.

Next game is Friday in New Jersey. I'll be making the trip out to The Rock for the game. It probably won't be a very sober one. In any event, it'll be a fun trip to the most wonderful arena that nobody goes to.

How Good Are Predictions?...

We know the gig. Everyone from a famous magazine, to a beat writer, to a blogger, to a hack buying a sandwich at Hot & Crusty before a Rangers' game makes predictions on the season before the puck drops, based on trades, offseason signings, and personal biases. Yes, personal biases. How else do you explain me picking the Rangers to make the playoffs in 2005-06 when everyone had them as dead? How else do you explain me and Larry Brooks both proclaiming them Stanley Cup champions in 2006-07, or me sending them to the Finals again last year?

Well, ever wonder just how accurate these predictions are? Before last season, I wrote down predictions from 4 sources - me, Newsday's beat writer Steve Zipay, Eklund from that rumor website, and ESPN (don't know who wrote the article, though).

After the season, I wrote down the real finishing order of both conferences, compared, and contrasted. I gave 2 points if the team finished in the exact spot predicted, and 1 point if they finished in or out of the playoffs as predicted, but with a different finishing order. For Newsday, he just listed "playoff teams" without a specific order, so I gave him 2 points for every team that made the playoffs that he predicted. Okay, without further ado, the results...

Second Place (tie)

In last place was ESPN, who only predicted 2 out of 6 division winners correctly (San Jose and Detroit). They thought both Atlanta and the Southeast-winning Capitals would be worse than actual worst-in-the-league Tampa Bay. They did have a lot of playoff teams, especially in the West, where the only team they overlooked was Minnesota (giving the nod to the Canucks, instead). 

24 points

Second Place (tie)

The bronze medal goes to The Rivalry's own Zach, who homered like no other, picking the Rangers to win the Atlantic (2nd overall in the east behind Ottawa), then winning the Stanley Cup by beating Calgary. Wow. Both of my Finals teams were out by the 2nd round. I also only had two spots dead-on, as I correctly predicted the Red Wings-Predators first round match-up that was. I as well had Tampa Bay to win their division, but I also had Washington making the playoffs. Uh, I also had Toronto in the playoffs and conference-winning Montreal on the outside looking in. Predicting the Flyers and Bruins to miss the playoffs? My bad. Like ESPN, I had 7 of 8 playoff teams in, only choosing Vancouver over the Wild.

24 points

Second Place (tie)

Newsday's correspondent Steve Zipay decided to not list an order and just put in who he thought would skate in the playoffs. His East was not too good, picking the Leafs, Hurricanes, and Sabres over actual-playoff teams Boston, Montreal, and Washington. In the West, he redeemed himself, going the ever-popular 7 of 8. The only blemish on his record their was Vancouver's missing of the playoffs. The team he left out - Nashville.

24 points

First Place

As much as it pains me, that Guy from the Site that announced "rumors" came in first place last year. He predicted the Penguins to come in 2nd in the East, the Capitals to come in 3rd, the Red Wings to win the West (easiest and most popular pick there was, apparently). He also capitalized on being from Philadelphia by picking the Flyers to make the playoffs. His only two mistakes in the East were Buffalo and Toronto, as he left out the Bruins and the Devils. He actually predicted the Devils to finish in 14th, with only Atlanta below them. In the West, his one mistake was, yes, Vancouver. He left out Dallas, who ended up 5th and dispatched the defending champion Ducks. He had Dallas coming in 13th, behind lottery teams St. Louis and Los Angeles.

27 points

So, what did we learn here? It's pretty tough to accurately predict, which is why we can't take them too seriously. The time will come on this blog when me and Bryan will make predictions, and both will put our favorite team way too high on the list. Well, at least he will. I'll put the Rangers where they will be at season's end - 1st, and he'll put the Islanders where he hopes they'll be - 9th. 

And the moral of the story is not to pick the Vancouver Canucks to do anything except lose, a tidbit I should've remembered from the year after the lockout, when I predicted them and Ottawa to be in the Stanley Cup finals, only to have them not make the playoffs.