If The Rangers Can't Buy Out Chris Drury, Why Not Just Shoot The Useless Bastard?

So the news broke Friday that the Rangers will not, as planned, be able to buy out team captain and He Who Is Responsible For All The Team's Problems, Chris Drury, due to a degenerative knee condition that will cause him to be unable to play this season. Ooh, something else to hate Drury for? Sweet!

Seriously, people who are actually angry with Drury about this - and they are out there - boggle the mind. It's just a continuance of the same theme among a faction of Ranger fans - we know better, we care more, than anyone actually within the organization. Drury is a useless player, the worst captain in the history of professional sports, and deep down he just doesn't care about the Rangers at all. He's probably a terrible father, too. Oh, and I bet his pizza sucks. Honestly, the fact that this dude gets so little respect or consideration from so many Ranger fans flabbergasts me. His career has, overall, been exemplary. He is still the only player in NHL history to win both the Hobey Baker and the Calder, and will long be remembered as one of the most clutch players in the game. The Stanley Cup that the Colorado Avalanche won in 2001 would almost certainly never have been won without him (and as shitty of hockey fans as most people in this great state of Colorado are, rest assured that they remember that well. He remains a beloved, almost iconic, figure in Denver sports.) Off the ice, he has been a humble, likable, admirable guy, well liked and respected by his teammates. Has he been the most vocal or charismatic of captains? No. Was Brian Leetch? They can't all be Mess, folks.

Ranger fans have a long history of deciding how a player will be treated based on his pay. If a guy's salary is deemed too high, he is expected to somehow become a better hockey player, fundamentally, than he is capable of being. In Drury's case, he was somehow expected to become a point-a-game guy - which he never was (as evidenced by his career stats of 615 points in 892 NHL games). It's just not his game. The same thing happened with Michal Rozsival, a perfectly serviceable (if unremarkable) defenseman with a little offensive skill who was nonetheless never going to morph into Sergei Zubov just because Glen Sather - shockingly - gave him too much money. In the case of someone like Wade Redden, perhaps the recipient of the worst contract in Sather's notoriously awful history in New York, things were a little different, as there was both more of a precedent in his career for the kind of play New York fans expected from him, as well as what certainly appeared to be a lack of effort and/or investment in the team. And anyone who knows me as a fan at all knows that because of that, Redden never got the same slack from me as Drury and Rozsival. I love to root for an underdog, yes, but if you look like you just don't give a shit even I will gladly throw you to the wolves.

There is also a tendency among some Ranger fans to posit that if one guy was gone - and this is the case with Drury just as it was with Redden, Rozsival, and others (Scott Gomez comes to mind) - everything would suddenly become sunshine and lollipops on 8th Avenue. As Mr. Hand might say: what are you people - on dope? The reality is that each time a scapegoat leaves, another invariably arises. Marek Malik left; Rozsival took his place. Then Redden came along and started sucking ass game in and game out, taking the bulk of the heat off Rozsival; when Redden moved on to Hartford, Rozy moved back into the line of fire. And inevitably, after Rozsival was traded, Drury became the goat (Rozsival was vocal about being disappointed to leave New York; Drury was probably even more unhappy about his departure, if only because he knew he was next in line). If and when Drury goes, the target simply moves elsewhere - my guess is onto the back of Marian Gaborik, who will likely find himself dodging torches and pitchforks if he doesn't net roughly 17 goals in his first 5 games next season. (Incidentally, if there has to be a scapegoat on the roster, I'd like to nominate Erik Christensen. He doesn't make that much money, I know, but damn I hate that soft little bastard.)

The ideal outcome of this situation for us as fans would be for Drury to retire, knowing he can't play next season no matter what and will be 36 years old at the start of the following season. That would relieve us of his salary without the team having to pay anything to get his contract off the books. And make no mistake - I want Drury off the team just like everyone else, because I think it's what is right for the team I love. But I hope that however that ends up happening, he will get a fonder farewell than most of the poor bastards who preceded him in the thankless role of scapegoat. Because however you feel about Drury, the fact is that he's a classy guy, a good guy, who's had a great career and has always put forth the effort. It simply did not work out for him in New York. That in no way denotes that he didn't try, didn't care, or does not deserve our respect or well-wishes. And if he doesn't retire... sadly no, we can't actually take him out behind the Garden and shoot him. So put the guns away, you trigger happy assholes.

If This New Yorker Can Give Props To Boston, Surely World Peace Is Just Around The Corner

I don't like Boston teams. I love Massachusetts - love the coastline, the landscapes, the old New England architecture, and my family members who hail from there. But I hate their teams, and as a New Yorker who grew up a fan of the Rangers, Yankees, Knicks and Jets, that's not only a birthright, but damn near an obligation. But the Bruins' victory in Game 7 last night was... well, deserved. This series, for me at least, was not about what city each team came from, it wasn't about the Sux (ahem, I mean Sox), Patriots or Celtics, it wasn't about "Boston fans are assholes and would never root for the Rangers, so I'll never root for Boston." It was, for me, about something deeper and, fundamentally, much more important. 

Honestly, at the start of the series I was entirely apathetic. I didn't give a damn who won, and I sure as hell wasn't rooting for either team - Vancouver being the clear favorite (lawd, how I hate a favorite), and Boston being, well, Boston, made me decide at the beginning that it didn't matter in Amyland which of them took the prize. But Vancouver's play and actions throughout this series made it impossible for me as a hockey fan to want to see them win. And not being with them, I was consequently against them. Whether it's Alex Burrows biting Patrice Bergeron, Aaron Rome cheapshotting Nathan Horton, or Roberto Luongo smack-talking Tim Thomas (despite Thomas showing himself to be the better goaltender throughout the series), I can't respect that. Nor can I respect or comprehend the behavior of Canuck fans in response to their team's Game 7 loss. It's not about cities or rivalries or grudges - it's about the way the game I love above all others is represented. And the Canucks, as well as their fans, represented the game like shit. On top of that, Boston was clearly the better team on the ice throughout the majority of the series, despite Vancouver's league-best record in the regular season (maybe if they had four Sedins instead of just two, things would have turned out differently? Shame on Mrs. Sedin for not getting that egg to split once more in the womb).

Rivalries in sports are a given, and in some ways are both healthy and necessary. But there are times - in my estimation especially when it comes to hockey, which has throughout its history in the U.S. been misunderstood, unfairly judged, and dismissed as nothing but brutality and barbarism by anyone who doesn't truly know the game - when one has to know when to put the rivalry aside in the interest of what's fair, appropriate, and best for the game. Do I like the idea of rooting for a team from Boston, my home's biggest sports rival? Of course not. I hate those Massholes (sorry, cousins - you're exempt). But the alternative would be rooting for a team that employed dirty tactics - exactly what those people who don't watch, don't know, and disparage hockey expect - and who simply did not work as hard as their opponents. Rooting for Vancouver would have meant rooting for Luongo, who somehow had the balls to denigrate the skill level of Boston counterpart Thomas despite Luongo himself putting on a laughable performance in the entire series (that man's not really Italian, he's Swiss. You know, like the cheese - fulla holes). There's nothing wrong with a little smack talk... if you are prepared to back it up with your actions. Clearly Luongo was unable to do that, and that being the case, he should have kept his big stupid trap shut. It would have been rooting for Burrows, whose decision to go all Iron Mike on Bergeron in Game 1 was questionable at least, but in my estimation, bestial. (It remains to be seen whether Burrows will show up for training camp with a new tribal face tattoo.) It would have been rooting for those godawful Vancouver jerseys (OK, maybe that's a little trivial and nitpicky, but seriously, those things are ridiculous). It would have been rooting for all those fans in Vancouver who thought nothing of torching cars and fire trucks, beating senseless anyone wearing anything with a Bruins logo on it, assaulting police, stabbing Bruins fans, and in at least one case, (allegedly; I still haven't seen trustworthy confirmation) pushing someone from an overpass. Last I read, over 150 people had received injuries serious enough to require treatment at a hospital. Over a hockey game. Tell me, hockey fans: what do you suppose those who disparage our beloved sport think when they see such behavior? Do you think it makes it harder or easier for them to believe that hockey is actually a great game, its players and fans not all just sub-intelligent knuckle-draggers?

Yet make no mistake: those who asserted that they could under no circumstances root for Boston were instead, directly or indirectly, rooting for the reinforcement of that unfair stereotyping of both the game and those who love it. Most of them are also forgetting that when Boston took on Philadelphia in the 2nd round, they had no trouble rooting for the Massholes. While the Flyers are undoubtedly an even bigger rival of the Rangers' than Boston, being in the same division, the things I heard about that series being a different story, about Boston being "the lesser of two evils" in that case, are, ahem, utter bullshit. If we'd like to talk about "evil" as it relates to this Cup Final and the way these two teams conducted themselves throughout, it is quite clear that the more "evil" of the two was, by a fairly wide margin, the Canucks. For any number of reasons, Vancouver did not deserve to win the Stanley Cup, and who their opponent was is irrelevant. It wasn't about Baahston - it was aboot Vancouver, eh?

So... Tim Thomas, congrats on the Conn Smythe Trophy win - no one deserved it more. Enjoy that Vezina, too (you've got it in the bag, dude). Zdeno Chara, I have mad respect for you, you giant Slovakian freak. Mark Recchi, all the best in your retirement, old man; see ya in the Hall of Fame in a few years. And to the people of Boston - congratulations. I still hate your teams, I still despise you all as rival fans, but you deserved this one - whether the masses that make up Ranger Nation want to admit it or not. Enjoy it while it lasts, because in 109 days, the Rangers are gonna be on your asses, and next year we just might take the Cup from you, you stupid chowdaheads.

Why Game 7 Of The Stanley Cup Finals Should Be Important To You... Even If It Isn't

So tonight, all of Canada will be tuned into a hockey game. Yeah, I know - not surprising. Cliché, even. It's also not surprising that of the Canadians I've spoken to – whatever part of that country they live in and whichever team they ordinarily root for – nearly all of them are rooting for the Vancouver Canucks. Of course, here in the States, pretty much all of New England will be tuning in as well, only they'll be rooting for the Boston Bruins. Hockey is important in both places, and in both places tonight is the most important hockey night in nearly 40 years.

But what about the rest of us, who are neither Canuck fans nor Bruin fans? Or maybe not really even hockey fans at all? Why should we care who wins the Stanley Cup?

I will admit, there's a certain level of apathy for someone like me, whose beloved team, the New York Rangers, last won the coveted Cup exactly 17 years and 1 day ago, and this season got knocked out of the playoffs in the first round. It pains me that it's not my team playing for the ultimate prize, because I remember that feeling of overwhelming joy, when the clock finally ran out and my team was on top of the world for the first time in 54 years, and I want nothing more than to feel that again. Also, there are other teams who were knocked out of this year's playoffs, from the first round through the 3^rd, that I would have preferred to see in the Finals if the Rangers couldn't be there. And our local team, the Colorado Avalanche, didn't even make it to the postseason this year (although I believe that given a little time to grow, the Avs will soon be contenders again). But there are reasons even for the uninvested – myself included – to root both for and against each competitor. This particular Stanley Cup Final is still interesting to me, not as a fan of the Rangers (as die-hard as I must confess to being), the Avalanche (whom I have, in spite of myself, developed an affection for in my time in Colorado) or any particular team, but as a hockey fan and, more importantly, a sports fan. Because whichever team wins this critical Game 7, it will be a momentous event for that organization and its fans. The Vancouver Canucks are chasing their first-ever Stanley Cup in the franchise's 41 years in the NHL. The Boston Bruins – one of the league's famed "Original Six" – seek their first championship since 1972. Both Vancouver and Boston are key hockey cities in North America despite the 3,000 miles that separate them. Also, this has thus far been a series overloaded with both passion and controversy, and I have no reason to believe that Game 7 will be any different. Everything each of these teams did during that long regular season and throughout the grueling playoff run - considered by many to be the toughest playoff run in professional sports; four best-of-seven series in one of the toughest, most physically demanding games on the planet - comes down to one last game. Two top-tier goalies, Roberto Luongo and Tim Thomas - both Vezina Trophy finalists – face off for the last time this season. One city, on one coast, will be in rapture, while the other will find its hopes crushed, its emotional investment bankrupt. If you're not a fan of either team, you may just have it best - because then you get to sit back and enjoy the spectacle, the excitement, and the passion, that is NHL playoff hockey, without any emotional baggage getting in the way. One last time, before the leaves change and a new beginning arrives for each of the 30 teams in the NHL. (Including, thankfully, both my New York Rangers and our Colorado Avalanche.)

Of course, you could decide to tune in to some reality show, or a replay of some movie you've seen a hundred times, instead. But you'd be missing out on one of the greatest spectacles in sports and, if you're not a hockey fan, an opportunity to find out firsthand just why those of us who are, are some of the most passionate (OK, some might say "crazy", but I'm sticking with "passionate") sports fans in the world. Not to mention a chance to learn that hockey is not mere brutality and bloodsport, but a game of great skill, strategy, and of course, passion. If you opt for Game 7 instead of that reality show or tired old movie, you just might end up joining the cult of hockey... and you'll thank me for it.