Time to Start Writing, Again

I apologize to all my fans (yes, that's a joke) for the long silence from The Embassy. Winter is a crazy time, with a lot more broadcast work keeping me busy than in the rest of the year. In addition, I had a regular gig blogging the New York Football Chokers for NFL.com. Turned out to be somewhat of a bitch-fest, as the Giants gave us a lot more consternation than jubilation from mid-October on.

Tonight, however, I'm off from work and have an evening to kill. There also was a development in the New York sports world that compels a response from The Embassy. And with the Jets, the favorite team of the Ambassador's father, two days away from an AFC Championship Game, the Knicks playing Kobe Bryant's Lakers on national TV and Syracuse cruising along in what could become a special season, who would have thought that the inspiration for my long silence to end would come from one of the dullest New York franchises, the stuck-in-the-mud New York Rangers?

But I saw the video this morning on ESPN.com of Flyers' scumbag (redundant) Daniel Carcillo happily throwing potshots at the Rangers' nonconfrontational goal-scorer Marian Gaborik, followed by Sean Avery, whom I've lambasted in this space, making a point of going after and mixing it up with Carcillo, and, finally, Ranger coach John Tortorella making a bigger priority of embarrassing a reporter than of addressing all of the above.

I'll address this by grading each of the six particulars on their performances:

1) Carcillo -- C. I'm grading him on a curve. Sure, dropping the gloves with a smaller, finesse player who clearly has never had any interest in fighting is an F performance, but how can you blame Carcillo? Blaming a Philadelphia Flyer for being a cowardly bully is like locking a dog in a cage for a week with 20 rabid raccoons and then blaming him for having rabies. I credit Carcillo for not biting Gaborik.

2) Gaborik -- B. I admire Gaborik's fortitude in dropping the gloves with Carcillo, whom he had no chance of beating in a fight. All players end up in these little post-whistle scrapes around the net, the likes of which often end in fisticuffs but rarely involving guys like Gaborik. You could find plenty of footage of, say, Brian Leetch headlocking a forward who was jabbing away at a Ranger goalie a little too long after the whistle, but you wouldn't see him in a fight because guys like him and Gaborik are not looking to drop the gloves, and fighters usually respect that. Gaborik seemed to end up in a situation in which he could either turn his back on Carcillo or accept the challenge. Turning his back would have been a blow to his manhood, so fight he did. Gaborik does not get an A, however, because he could have gotten seriously hurt in a foolish endeavor, fighting a true goon. The Rangers' offense is anemic even with Gaborik. Without him, they may as well not even show up for their remaining games.

3) Daniel Girardi -- Incomplete. ESPN's Steve Berthiume and Matt Barnaby, a former pugilist for the Rangers and other teams, ripped Girardi, a good-sized defenseman, for standing by -- close by -- while Carcillo fought Gaborik. The way it sounds, Girardi let discretion be the better part of valor by not jumping in. Had he gone in, he would have been the third man in a fight, an infraction that carries an immediate major and game misconduct. That would have left the Rangers killing a 5-on-3 Flyer advantage for the moment and short a valuable defenseman for the game. Players of this generation all have seen Slap Shot, but they have grown up knowing that they can't join other players' fights. Jumping into this fight, however, also would have sent the message that the Rangers are willing to take severe penalties to stand up for their most critical player not named Lundqvist.

I'm not willing to fail Girardi right now, for two reasons. One: the ESPN video did not show Girardi. I've only heard people talk about what he did or didn't do. Two: Let's say his reticence was as bad as I'm hearing. I'm willing to wait a while to see how he performs in future tests of manhood. I'm sure he'll remember this and respond the way he should. One reader commented on Larry Brooks' story on this incident on the Web that all the Rangers probably hate Girardi now. That is foolish speculation, and I have a hard time believing it's true. Girardi has been their teammate for a long time. Gaborik is in his first year on the team. I doubt the men in that locker room are all ready to sever ties with a guy who has been their teammate for that long because of one incident in which he failed to stand up for a newer teammate -- if that even truly happened.

4) Sean Avery -- A. This grade is not an A+ only because Avery did not jump in and pound Carcillo while the fight with Gaborik was going on. Not that he could have. He was not involved. It's not a punishment for Avery. Just can't get the plus. But it's an A performance by Avery, not just going right after Carcillo but beating him decisively. So much of what Avery does drives me and many Ranger fans crazy, and he's a cheap-shot artist who deserves to be as hated as he is by fans of all the other teams. He is, however, a hell of a hockey player and a good fighter, and he stood up well for a teammate. Nothing more to say. Great job.

For all you roasting Girardi, by the way, I'd like you to imagine the following scenario: Avery, not Girardi, is standing near the Carcillo-Gaborik fight, jumps in, pounds Carcillo, takes the requisite penalties and gets tossed from the game, and the Flyers score during the ensuing 5-on-3. How many of you would have ripped Avery for hurting his team with foolish, immature penalties? Don't everyone raise their hands at once.

5) Larry Brooks -- B+. About the only thing I've ever liked about the Post has been its hockey coverage, thanks mostly to Brooks. And he stood up pretty well to Torts, who was acting in typical bully fashion -- more on this later. He could have done better, however, insisting, as I will shortly, that Torts answer the question and stop avoiding it with this other crap about not wanting to answer Brooks' questions.

As for the Brooks column that had Tortorella so upset, I haven't seen it. At least I don't think I have. I found, on the Post's Larry Brooks archive, one story from Jan. 1 insisting that Ranger GM Glen Sather admit his personnel mistakes by getting rid of Wade Redden, Michal Rozsival and Donald Brashear, another cowardly Flyer who just happens to be in the Rangers' employ; and another from mid-December that roasted Redden for whining about being a healthy scratch. Tortorella said Brooks wrote a sarcastic article. Brooks retorted, "It was funny." I'm pretty sure I didn't see this story. But Brooks has been covering the NHL with professionalism for a long time. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

6) Tortorella -- F. Tortorella's failure is threefold. First, he danced around a very important question from Brooks about the most important moment of the hockey game. Brooks asked him whether a player -- implying Girardi, I assume -- should have entered the Gaborik fight as the third man. Tortorella responded by saying he would not answer questions from "you," talking to Brooks. No matter how big a problem Torts has with Brooks, he absolutely must answer that question, even if only with a "yes" or "no," though I expected a lot from Torts on this question.

Second, Torts' exchange with Brooks was completely gutless and bullying. "You probably got beat up at the bus stop." Tortorella is the one who sounded like the kid at the bus stop. Brooks responded to Torts like a man: "Are you challenging me?" He didn't try to escalate the situation, but he didn't try to defuse it, either. He really was looking to find out, face-to-face, in public, from Tortorella if the coach was indeed challenging him to a fight. Of course, Tortorella wasn't. Not because he wouldn't win. I'm sure he would. But because -- and we've seen this too many times -- he's another bully picking on the nerd with the notebook. He doesn't have to fight him if he can just embarrass him and make him cry "uncle." Just once, I'd love to see a writer -- the type coaches love to embarrass, the ones who didn't play the game -- shove a coach into a wall and then see if the coach continues essentially to call him a sissy in front of people and cameras.

Third: John Tortorella is in no position to be grandstanding with reporters. The media was pretty welcoming to him when he got this job after the firing of the classy and successful Tom Renney, who got the Rangers to the playoffs in each of his full seasons in New York after the team had not reached the playoffs in nine years and won a playoff series in his last two springs, something Tortorella could not do last April when spotted a three-games-to-one series lead. Tortorella's Rangers have seven fewer points in the standings through 54 games this season than Renney's Rangers had through the same number last year, despite the presence of the other-worldly talent of Gaborik.

I'm not saying Tortorella should fear for his job, or even agree with whatever Brooks wrote. I'm just saying a little humility might do him some good, especially in the face of good questions from good hockey writers. And if you've got a problem with Brooks, John, I'm guessing you'd have no trouble getting him on the phone. That's the venue to voice your displeasure.