This paragraph is from here, but aside from the usual whining about the 'new' NHL sucking when it really doesn't the article is fine. It's how this is being presented that annoys me.
It was not a hit to the head. It was not an illegal hit, either, despite the illegitimate decision by the four-man officiating crew that originally made no call, but upon seeing Cullen flat on the ice and briefly unconscious, then took the cowardly way out and gave Orr a five-minute major for interference after a lengthy caucus.
The first thing is that there wasn't even a hit, as is obvious here. Orr ran into Cullen as he crossed the ice. Whether or not he initially intended to even make contact with Cullen is kind of up in the air.
This wasn't a question of violence in the NHL. Hockey is a very physical game. Accidents will happen.
The issue that everyone seems to be glossing over is what the refs did. The ref invented a penalty. There is no such thing as a 5-minute major for interference. None. I don't know how a hockey journalist could type those four words in a row and not have a problem with them.
Furthermore, Cullen had the puck. Cullen had the puck. There cannot be an 'interference' call when a player carrying the puck is hit. He's not being 'interfered' with (as it applies to hockey, anyway). In fact, good ol' Wikipedia defines interference as:
Impeding an opponent who does not have the puck, or impeding any player from the bench.
Why is no one writing about this in droves? Probably for the same reason the cowardly ref made the call in the first place. It's hardly as sexy or in-vogue, and kind of qualifies as hockey 'dirty laundry.'
--------
This article by one Hockey Rodent was inane and convoluted. I generally dislike HR; I find s/h/it to be holier-than-thou and fanboi!!!1one at the same time. It bothers me that his mantra of communication seems to be, "Use as many big words as possible so as to confuse the reader itno agreement!" It's a writer's job to be clear, not the reader's to wade through the writer's muck. And he's so blatant.
But I rant.
Anyway, he spend the beginning of the article bashing Sather, which makes him sound like a whiny brat. Por ejemple:
Of significance to this column was the jettisoning of Leetch, a legacy Ranger and fan legend. Apparently, Sather's purges know no boundaries.
I love Leetch. I do. I will go to Brian Leetch Night and scream my head off, and will always appreciate him. But an aging, deteriorating veteran just isn't something that will help the team. Considering what happened to Leetch post-facto, Sather actually made a pretty damn good decision.
Then, we get about three small paragraphs of meat:
Don't forget Jagr's proclamation that New York was the place he'd always wanted to be. He pledged to finish his North American career in Madison Square Garden, saying that if he were traded before his deal expired he'd protest the transaction by retiring. We'll come back to this oath shortly.
THE CZECH PHASE
Ultimately, Holik's contract was bought out when the work stoppage ended. Carrying his hefty paper was impractical under a salary cap of $39 million. Still, the next incarnation of Blueshirts featured no fewer than seven Czechs, including Martin Straka, Marek Malik, Michal Roszival, Petr Prucha, a repatriated Martin Rucinsky and Petr Sykora, who joined the club mid-season from Anaheim. Clearly, the supporting cast was a signal to all that Jagr would finish his NHL career on Broadway and that the organization was prepared to provide him with whatever it took to make his tenure as comfortable as money could permit.
The thing that bothers me about this is that it completely neglects the fact that Jagr, for all his best-European-ever awesomeness, has always been a headcase. It almost seems to imply that Jagr (nay, Sather!) is trying to ruin the Rangers organization.
The fact of the matter is, when you play a Jaromir Jagr, you may or may not get the one you want. When he's on, he's ridiculously dominant. When he's moping, he's abysmal. Making Jagr happy results in record-setting reasons and a crapload of awards. A mopey Jagr... well, that's what the Rangers have now. He'll swing back and be awesome again in due time. The Rangers aren't going to trade their captain mid-season, especially when their captain can very obviously still be awesome and the Rangers are still very much in the mix.
Jagr's frustration this fall is no secret. His struggles are due to two major influences including Straka, his favorite flanker, who went several weeks on IR with a broken hand, and the failure of pivots Scott Gomez, Chris Drury and rookie Brandon Dubinsky to achieve the chemistry formerly provided by Nylander.
Rodent has always had a kind of inverse man-crush on Scott Gomez, by which I mean he seems to hate him. He wrote articles during the off-season on how Gomez was overpriced and overrated and just generally whined about his horribleness.
But right now, Gomez is the best player on the Rangers, especially consistently. He leads them in points (35) and is on pace for about 20 goals, 50 assists, and a 70-point season. That's Gomez. During a really awesome year, he might have around 30 goals. A down year, like last with the Devils, might produce 10. He will always have more assists than goals. This is what we expected. This is what the Rangers signed up for.
Drury has been underwhelming thus far, but this is the first-year of a 7-year contract. To imply him a failure is kind of ridiculous.
And Dubinsky is a rookie who looks pretty good.
What were we talking about again?
What did catch my attention was the backchannel feedback associated with Sather's purportedly sounding out the team captain on such a change of venue. Jagr nixed the Red Wings according to this tale, but said he would consider moving to another club as long as it was in the Eastern Conference and was a team with a good situation.
This was too detailed to go unvetted. So I did some digging and heard two additional variations of the same thing, though neither involving Hockey Town.
My spellcheck is telling me "unvetted" isn't a word. This amuses me to no end.
I'm not sure the big deal. Jagr would be willing to go to another team! Gasp! I like my house, but that doesn't mean I've never considered going to a different house. And my family doesn't hate me when I consider such a thing. They just wait til I get over it.
I asked my sources if this meant Jagr wanted out of New York. One told me it depends upon his mood on any given day or moment. He sometimes feels unappreciated by management, scapegoated by Manhattan media, and alienated by the local fans.
Yes. Because Jagr is a headcase. A very talented headcase that they won't trade.
The Rangers remain in the playoff hunt. And as long as Lundqvist stays healthy, it's doubtful Slats will be motivated to move Jagr because he fills seats even when he's not filling twine. But if the club continues to struggle through the All-Star break, the previously unthinkable might happen.
Just ask Brian Leetch.
And here the sheer stupidity comes to fruition. Yes, Jagr is on the downside of his career. But the guy had 96 points last year, and 123 the year before that. Would you get rid of that guy?
Some Leetch Stats:
(34 yrs old) 2000-01 NYR 82 games played 21 goals 58 assists 79 points
(35 yrs old) 2001-02 NYR 82 10 45 55
(36 yrs old) 2002-03 NYR 51 12 18 30
(37 yrs old) 2003-04 NYR 57 13 23 36
(37 yrs old) 2003-04 TOR 15 2 13 15
(39 yrs old) 2005-06 BOS 61 5 27 32
That's a little messy, I know. Some points:
1. Jagr is 35. When traded, Leetch was 37. He was 39 his last year. Do you really want that player? Jagr's no spring chicken, but there is a significant difference between 35/36 and 37/38.
2. The thing that jumped out at me was how many games he played. There was a pretty big falloff (31 less games in 02-03 vs. years before), and management probably noticed this.
3. Corresponding with this is how his production fell off. His total points went 79-55-30, and he was obviously in a position to be injured. Again, Jagr scored 96 points last year. This is not a number to scoff at. He is a lunatic. There is no reason to think he'll suddenly just stop functioning.
Bottom line: the Leetch trade was defensible, if not a very good decision (ultimately). A Jagr trade? Less so. And blathering sentimental non-hockey nonsense does not sway me.
-----
This is from here, but again, it's not the content of the article I take issue with.
Both papers agreed young Rangers winger Petr Prucha and veteran Jackets forward David Vyborny might form part of a potential swap.
Prucha is a small but energetic youngster with both potential and an affordable salary while Vyborny might mesh well with struggling Rangers star and fellow Czech Jaromir Jagr.
Why is Prucha producing less? Two words: Power play. He spent the last two years on the top PP unit with Jagr. Then he was taken off, and his production dwindled. He was put back on last night, and scored twice. Kind of wondering why no one sees this connection.
Whew. Lots of Rangers, lots of stupid. Lots of awesome.
